Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Falkirk and District Traction Order Confirmation Bill.

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is anticipated the Report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance will be available?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on 20th October.

BUILDING INDUSTRY.

Mr. McGOVERN: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour to state the total number of unemployed building-trade workers on 1st October, 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of insured persons in the building industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at 26th September, 1932, was 239,358. This is the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the tremendous increase in the last 12 months or so, would it not be advisable for the Minister seriously to take up the question of extensive building operations in this country so as to absorb unemployed labour?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman knows that that raises a very large
question of policy, as to which I cannot give him an answer.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will the Minister consider calling the attention of the Minister of Health to these figures so that he can get into touch with local authorities and get them to renew their activities in building?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will see that the information is conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. THORNE: I do not think it is very much good making representations. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter before the Cabinet and get a Cabinet decision, so that local authorities can get on with the work they want to do?

Sir H. BETTERTON: All these and similar questions are constantly before the Government.

ANOMALIES REGULATIONS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour to state the total number of persons disqualified from benefit on 10th October, 1932, as a result of the operation of the Anomalies Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The statistics give the number of disallowances under the Anomalies Regulations for monthly periods, and the figure for the month ending 30th September was 5,275.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the Minister give us the total figures, not the monthly figures, of those now disqualified?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman did not ask that. He asked
the total number of persons disqualified from benefit on 10th October, 1932.
I can give him the corresponding figure for the year ended 30th September, which is exactly what he wants. It was 212,154.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is it the case, as has been frequently stated, that the Minister is acting entirely outside the intention or the spirit of the Act and acting more brutally than was intended; and is it the case that the Trades Union Congress have made representations to him to be more lenient with the people under that Act?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I ought to add to my previous answer that the figure I gave relates to cases, not separate individuals. With regard to the other point, as the hon. Gentleman knows and as I have often stated, the question of these regulations is constantly under my own consideration, but I am guided, and have to be guided, by the recommendations of the committee set up under the Act.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is it the case that the Trades Union Congress, which previously endorsed the Act, have now made a request that it be modified?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I am not quite sure of that without looking into it, but I will look into it and see what their recommendations are.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the first and major recommendation of this joint committee was not wholly followed by the Minister of Labour?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Oh, no; the recommendations of the committee have been followed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: rose——

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the mater by question and answer.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. CONANT: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour to state the number of classes for physical training for the unemployed in receipt of financial assistance from the Ministry of Labour; and the numbers taking advantage of the facilities?

Mr. HUTCHISON: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the experiment of arranging physical training classes for the unemployed at Pontypridd has proved successful; and whether arrangements are being made for its extension to any other parts of the country for the coming winter?

Sir H. BETTERTON: My Department is at present conducting four physical training centres the cost of which as borne by the Exchequer. So far they have proved very successful; 959 men are enrolled as members of classes and the average attendance has been 86 per cent. Arrangements for the future are under consideration.

BURGESS HILL (ROAD CONSTRUCTION).

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that in the Burgess Hill urban district, containing a population of 5,975, unemployment insurance cards are now being issued to approximately 500 men; whether he is aware, moreover, that, under the conditions on which public grants for road reconstruction are made, the East Sussex County Council, in remaking and widening the great arterial road from Brighton to London, are being compelled to obtain 50 per cent. of the men employed from mining or other distressed areas to the exclusion of the unemployed of Burgess Hill, through or near which the road runs; and whether he will take steps to remedy this?

Sir H. BETTERTON: According to the Department's records, the number of men at present registered as unemployed at Burgess Hill is 252. The road scheme to which my hon. Friend refers was approved early in 1931, under an arrangement in accordance with which a higher rate of grant than the normal is paid in return for the employment of a proportion of labour drawn from depressed areas, the remainder being drawn from local sources. In view of the fact that the average percentage of unemployment among men at Burgess Hill during the last 12 months was 11.1 per cent. compared with percentages of over 50 per cent. in the depressed areas, I see no ground for disturbing the present arrangements.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how this distressed area can get any share of the employment that is provided by public funds to which this area contributes? How are we to get any share for our unemployed people?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Is my hon. and learned Friend referring to Burgess Hill?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Yes, and other areas.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer is that under an arrangement made by my predecessor, which I do not propose to disturb, a higher rate of grant was paid to this area, and as a condition of that higher rate of grant the area was re-
quired to take a certain proportion of people from areas which were more distressed than their own.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. HICKS: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the London County Council, in assessing the means of applicants for transitional benefit, take into account the value of meals given at school to children; whether this is the usual practice of public assistance authorities; and, if so, whether this practice is approved by his Department?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I understand that regard is had to the value of these meals in the London County Council area and that this is commonly, though not universally, the practice elsewhere. As the same practice is followed by the London authority in dealing with applications for public assistance their procedure is in conformity with the requirements of the Order in Council governing transitional payments.

Mr. HICKS: Does the Minister not regard such a measure as being particularly vicious and spiteful?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman really must not ask me to give him an opinion as to the practice of public assistance committees.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Cabinet, in bringing up the Bill to deal with the means test, to make this one of the considerations, about not taking into account meals given to children in the schools?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Bill. I cannot anticipate it.

Mr. THORNE: You can make representations surely?

Mr. HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman gave an opinion about Rotherham. Why cannot he give an opinion in this case?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The reason I gave an opinion about Rotherham was that Rotherham was quite clearly infringing an Act passed by this House.

Mr. ROBINSON: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that transitional payment is on a lower scale
to people living in common lodging-houses than to those living in other lodgings; and on what grounds this distinction is made?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The practice of authorities in this matter depends on their practice in public assistance, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await the reply to a similar question which he has addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of those undergoing training at the labour industrial training centres; and whether there is a waiting list for admission or if there are any vacancies?

Sir H. BETTERTON: 1,984 men were in attendance at Government training centres on 17th October, and there is a waiting list of approximately 500 men who have been accepted for training. These men will be allocated to a centre as and when vacancies in the various classes arise.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that several voluntary training classes for unemployed have been organised in London, and can he give such classes some encouragement and assistance?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I will give every encouragement I can.

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the training of these men for industries which already have large numbers of unemployed is wasting time?

"MINISTRY OF LABOUR GAZETTE" (STATISTICS).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour why a comparable figure to that of 170,000 at 22nd August given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for September, 1932, as the reduction of registered unemployed owing to legislative and administrative changes does not appear in the October Gazette; and if he will give this figure for 26th September?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member will see from the explanatory article published in the "Ministry of
Labour Gazette" for last April it is not possible to continue these estimates indefinitely. As was stated in that article "the estimates can be valid only for the period immediately following the dates from which the legislative and administrative changes took effect. As those dates recede, other influences have a bearing upon the figures and it becomes practically impossible to distinguish the effects of the various factors at work." It was for this reason that no estimate was published in the October Gazette, but there is no ground for thinking that the figures for the end of September would differ materially from the previous estimate of 170,000.

Mr. HALL: Is it intended that this change should continue permanently?

Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the article to which I have referred, he will see that it is really misleading to continue these figures beyond a certain date. I may add that similar questions were constantly put to my predecessor with regard to other changes, and he was compelled to give the same answer as I am giving.

DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the opportunity offered at the present time for obtaining cheap credit facilities, the Government will consider utilising this credit so as to give financial assistance for increased shipbuilding, the electrification of the railways, and the provision of houses at a rent within the means of the working classes, on a basis that would show an adequate return on the capital invested and at the same time provide work for the unemployed and give a stimulus to the depressed industries?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The cheapening of credit facilities has had some effect and will, I hope, have a still greater effect as time goes on in encouraging the undertaking of capital works. My hon. Friend's suggestion, however, appears to contemplate direct financial assistance by the Government in favour of particular forms of development. This is a highly controversial matter which could not be dealt with within the limits of the answer to a Parliamentary question.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that answer and the policy indicated with the attitude adopted by the Government towards the new Cunarders?

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any decision has yet been reached with reference to the ratification of the Washington Eight Hours Convention?

Sir H. BETTERTON: In the statement which I made in April of this year at Geneva, and which my hon. Friend will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th April, I explained the position fully and gave the reasons why it has not been possible to ratify this convention. Nothing has happened since to alter this position.

Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better that this matter should stand over until the conditions of employment in this country improve?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot add to my answer. I have dealt with the matter very fully.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the Government have definitely decided not to ratify during this Parliament?

Sir H. BETTERTON: No; the hon. Gentleman really must not put into my answer a meaning which I did not intend.

Mr. MANDER: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TOURISTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the approximate number of foreign tourists who entered British ports during the past summer; and how this number compares with the summer of 1931?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The number of foreign passengers landed as visitors on holiday, tourists, etc., during the six months April-September, 1932, is 134,775; the corresponding
figure for 1931 is 151,402. These figures do not include day or week-end excursionists, the number of whom was 29,188 from April to September, 1932, as against 9,802 in the corresponding period of 1931. In order to assist those catering for tourist traffic, arrangements have been made for these figures to be published monthly in the Press.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate of the number of foreign tourists who might have visited these shores had the Government entirely abolished D.O.R.A.?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 20.
asked the Home Secretary which local authorities not permitting Sunday cinemas in their areas previous to the passage of the Sunday Entertainments Act have since applied for powers enabling them to do so?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A draft order has been submitted to me applying for the extension to the Borough of Maidstone of the power under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to allow cinemas to open on Sundays. The order will be laid before Parliament at an early date. No other draft order has yet been submitted.

Mr. ROBINSON: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether any steps have yet been taken to set up a film institute under the Sunday Entertainments Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, neither authorises nor requires me to set up a film institute; but. I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, which provides for the establishment of a fund "for the purpose of encouraging the use and development of the cinematograph as a means of entertainment and instruction." This fund is to come into existence only when Regulations have been made prescribing what percentage of the sums devoted to charitable objects from the profits of Sunday cinematograph entertainments shall be paid into the fund. No such Regulations have as yet been made, but I hope to be in a position to make them early next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP ASSISTANTS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to announce the intentions of the Government on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Shop Assistants?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question on this subject by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on 24th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS AND ASBESTOSIS).

Mr. JAMIESON: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number, down to the last convenient date, of persons employed in the asbestos industry who have been medically examined in pursuance of the Silicosis and Asbestosis (Medical Arrangements) Scheme in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively; the total amount paid by employers to the medical expenses fund in respect of such examinations; and the number of persons certified by the medical board as totally disabled or suspended from employment as suffering from asbestosis?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Since the 1st June, 1931, when the Silicosis and Asbestosis (Medical Arrangements) Scheme came into force, 1,535 workmen have been examined under the scheme in the asbestos industry in England and Wales and 80 in Scotland. The total amount paid by employers to the Medical Expenses Fund in respect of these examinations is £2,300. Certificates of total disablement or suspension on account of asbestosis or asbestosis accompanied by tuberculosis have been issued in 30 eases in England and Wales and two cases in Scotland.

Mr. JAMIESON: In view of the large expense incurred by employers and the small number of men found to be unfit for work, will the right hon. Gentleman consider rescinding or modifying this scheme?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I think that this new experiment is fully justified. Of course, it is true that it requires very
expert examination, but it may be that the cost will be materially reduced in the future.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of tin-mining, this scheme operates to the disadvantage of both employers and employés, especially as the latter cannot get employment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think it is too early to make an assertion of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. TINKER: 25.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to make a statement in respect of compulsory insurance to cover all workmen who come within the Workmen's Compensation Act?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No general scheme of compulsory insurance is under consideration, but, as the hon. Member knows, communications have passed between the Home Office and the Mining Association with a view to safeguarding the workmen and their dependants in the event of future colliery liquidations by an extension of the present system of mutual insurance or otherwise. As a result of these communications I am assured that active steps are being taken with this object in every coalfield and that considerable progress have been made. For example, in South Wales the Articles of Association of the Mutual Indemnity Society have now been altered so as to give cover for all classes of accidents and 90 per cent. of the collieries are reported to be now within the scheme. Progress is being made and I hope to receive before long from the Mining Association a full statement of the position.

Mr. TINKER: In case the right hon. Gentleman does not get satisfaction as regards the suggested schemes, will he consider bringing in legislation during the next Session to make insurance compulsory?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think my answer shows that very considerable progress is being made.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Is the Minister aware that in connection with
the mutual indemnity insurance scheme in South Wales, in a large number of cases, owing to the conditions of premiums or policies, employers may find themselves without any insurance fund at all, in the event of a company going into liquidation and that there is no adequate safeguard for the insured people?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that that may have been so, but that the articles of association have been amended.

Mr. GRENFELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even to this day men working in firms connected with the mutual indemnity scheme are not properly covered by insurance?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member has any information on that point, I shall he glad to go into it.

Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware of the large number of employers in other industries apart from coal-mining who do not insure for workmen's compensation, and will he take steps to see that they do so?

Mr. TINKER: 26.
asked the Home Secretary if he is in a position to say what is the total amount of compensation paid, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to those persons who were entitled to it when the Worsley Mesnes collieries and the Ashton Green collieries, both in Lancashire, closed down?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am making further inquiry as to the up-to-date position in these cases, and will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive the replies.

Mr. TINKER: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that it is now three years since the Worsley Mesnes colliery closed down, and 12 months since the Ashton Green collieries closed down, and that not one penny piece has been paid to these workmen yet?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS (CONTROL).

Mr. LEVY: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the prevalence of attacks by armed criminals, he is considering means to restrict more effectively
than at present the distribution of firearms; and, if so, what are the measures contemplated?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The control of firearms is regulated under the Firearms Act, 1920, which renders liable to penalties any person who is found in the possession of any firearm or ammunition, as defined in the Act, unless he is the holder of a firearm certificate granted by the chief officer of police of the district in which he resides. The Act also provides special penalties, up to penal servitude for 20 years, for any person who is found in possession of a firearm or ammunition with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. I am considering whether any further powers are necessary. The prevention and detection of offences are matters for the police, and I have no reason to think that they do not exercise all possible vigilance in the matter.

Mr. LEVY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply may I ask him, having regard to the fact that he is considering a tightening-up of the law in this respect, to proceed with all possible rapidity?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. LEVY: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to give effect to any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN AND GIRLS (FOREIGN ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. FLEMING: 30.
asked the Home Secretary what precautions are taken, if any, to prevent English girls from being lured away to foreign countries by white slave traffickers representing themselves as theatrical agents?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Children (Employment Abroad) Acts, 1913 and 1930, provide that no young person under 18 may go abroad to perform for profit without a licence from one of the Bow Street
Police Court magistrates, and strict conditions are inserted in any such licence to secure the proper treatment and adequate supervision of the young person concerned. I understand that in the case of young women over 18 who are proceeding abroad to fulfil theatrical engagements, the Passport Office before issuing a passport satisfy themselves as far as possible as to the nature of the employment and the terms of the contract. I have no reason to believe that the protection so afforded in insufficient to prevent the risk suggested in the question, but if my hon. Friend has any information in his possession and will send it to me it shall receive careful consideration.

Mr. FLEMING: Can my right hon. Friend give the House any information with regard to six London girls who were recently shipped to Paris by a notorious white slaver, by name Luis Fernandez, who was convicted a short time ago by the Paris courts?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better convey that question to the Home Secretary by some other means than by a supplementary question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proportion referred to applies only to London girls or also to girls from the provinces; and must they also apply to the Bow Street magistrate?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I imagine so. I think that is so, but I will inquire.

Mr. FLEMING: Will my right hon. Friend give the House any information as to the number of girls in the last three months who have been shipped, to the knowledge of Scotland Yard, to foreign ports?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTURBANCES, SOUTH LONDON.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any further information as to the participation of Communists in the street disturbances in London last week?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think that there is anything which I can usefully add
to the full statements regarding these disturbances which I made on Wednesday last.

Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to this question and others that the right hon. Gentleman has answered, may I ask whether the Communist party is an illegal organisation? I want an answer, because this political party seems to me to have the same rights as any other political party, and I want to ask if——

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in the question on the Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: It arises out of the Home Secretary's answers.

Mr. SPEAKER: All sorts of things might arise out of these questions, and, if I allow one, I must allow them all.

Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you invariably allow a supplementary question, and this is the first one that has been put, and the Home Secretary has not replied to it.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the first one that has been put that has not had something to do with the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (APPOINTMENT).

Mr. HICKS: 32.
asked the Home Secretary the terms and conditions of the appointment of Colonel the Hon. Maurice Drummond as chief constable of the Metropolitan Police; whether there are any special duties attaching to his office; and whether consideration was given to the appointment of an experienced police officer as well as to an officer from the Royal Air Force?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Colonel Drummond's appointment is subject to the usual terms and conditions applying to holders of the rank of chief constable in the Metropolitan Police Force. He has been assigned special duties in connection with the organisation of the Force and is working directly under the Commissioner. All relevant considerations were taken into account before the appointment was made.

Mr. HICKS: Is it not a fact that Colonel Drummond is on half-pay from the Air Force and is a soldier and a policeman at the same time?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think that question had better be put down.

Mr. HICKS: Is this appointment definitely additional to the ordinary strength of the Yard, and if it is, in view of the fact that the wages of the police are being cut down, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a queer form of economy?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This appointment has been made for a special purpose and is desirable from the point of view of the efficiency of the Force.

Mr. HICKS: Is it an additional appointment?

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not there were suitable police officers in the country who might do equally as well as a man who has never had any experience of the police?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The Chief Commissioner is the best judge in selecting a man for the job he required to be performed. With regard to the other question, I understand that this is not a, new appointment, but filling a vacancy.

Mr. HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of aggravation in the Yard about the appointment?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUCTION (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) ACT.

Major CARVER: 33.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have been instituted under the Auction (Bidding Agreements) Act; where the prosecutions have taken place; and what has been the result in each case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No prosecutions under Section 1 of the Act have been taken in England or Wales.

Major CARVER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if more prosecutions were made, it would help the farming community, who are anxious to get good prices for their goods?

Sir H. CAUTLEY: Is not the Minister aware that these rings at cattle sales and auctions are more prevalent now than ever before, and will he consider the advisability of arranging for some officer to visit the various sales with a view to taking steps for the prevention of breaches of this Act, which are taking place daily?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am, of course, prepared to consider any such steps, and will look into the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FASCIST DEMONSTRATION, LONDON.

Mr. DORAN: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether in view of the disturbances caused by the demonstration in the Strand of a recently founded Fascist group, he will prohibit the holding of such demonstrations in future?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have obtained reports regarding the incident to which I presume my hon. Friend refers. I am informed that apart from a slight scuffle at one point there was no disorder and that the procession immediately dispersed on the leader being reminded by the police that it could not be allowed near Westminster. I am sure that the police are fully competent to deal with such incidents, and as at present advised I see no occasion for the issue of any special directions.

Mr. DORAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the objective in connection with this campaign is the creation of an anti-Semitic war in this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that now.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it known, because there is a large number of people who do not know, that no demonstration is allowed within a certain distance of this House, and I think it ought to be generally known what the distance is?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made it known. When I spoke the other day, I drew the attention of the House to the circumstances.

Mr. THORNE: I mean the distance.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

EVENING CLASSES (FEES).

Mr. DICKIE: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in the event of his Department increasing the fees for evening classes, he will see that consideration is given to the case of those students whose parents find it difficult to pay the existing fees, particularly in the distressed areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Board have made no specific requirements for the revision by local education authorities of fees for evening classes. They have suggested that, authorities should review their arrangements with a view to making increases in appropriate cases, but they are fully alive to the inability of many part-time students to make increased payments, and they have no doubt, that local authorities will continue to discriminate between the various types of students and will make provision for the total or partial remission of fees where necessary.

Mr. DICKIE: Have the local authorities power to revise these fees in the event of their being increased?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The local authorities have such discretion as they have had in the past to discriminate between the various types of students.

TEACHERS (SERVICE ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES).

Mr. PIKE: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the total number of elementary and secondary school teachers who are county, city, or rural district councillors; the number of teaching hours lost by their attendance at meetings in connection with their work as councillors; and if substitutes are provided during their absence and at what cost?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I regret that no information is available as to the number of teachers who are members of county councils or other local authorities, or as to the number of teaching hours lost by their attendance at meetings. I understand that where teachers are members of local public bodies it will
generally be found that their meetings are held in the evenings, but if any cases arise in which teachers apply for leave of absence to attend meetings during school hours, it is for the local education authorities or governing bodies, whose servants they are, to deal with their applications, and I think that they can be relied upon to see that they are not granted unreasonably.

Mr. PIKE: Is my hon. Friend aware that while the council meeting itself is probably held in the evening, a large majority of these committees are held from 2 o'clock onwards, and that does necessitate the leaving of school in order to attend the meetings of the committees? Will he issue new instructions which will prohibit their leaving during school teaching hours?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: In view of the plain insinuation involved in this question, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any sort of information in the possession of the Board of Education would indicate any conflict between the discharge of the professional duties of teachers and the discharge of their civic obligations?

Mr. PIKE: Will my hon. Friend also state whether it is his opinion that this is a matter of professional conflict? Is it not a matter rather of national duty?

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does my hon. Friend really think that it is right in the public interest that teachers, as employés of the local authorities, should serve on local authorities?

Mr. PIKE: 37.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he is aware that school teachers, employed under the West Riding of Yorkshire Education Authority, are seeking election and re-election to the Sheffield City Council; whether permission will be sanctioned in the event of their election to absent themselves from school during teaching hours to attend council meetings; and, if so, will he assure the House that comparable deductions will be made from the salaries for all teaching time lost whilst engaged in council business?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that I have no information. As regards the
second part, if any teachers were elected and, as a result, applied for leave of absence from school duties to attend council meetings, it would be for the West Riding authority to consider their applications, and I cannot say what their decision would be. I understand, however, that it has not been the general practice of this authority in the past to grant such applications.

Mr. PIKE: Will the Minister recommend, in the event of such applications being granted, that comparable reductions will be made from their salaries while attending meetings?

Mr. PIKE: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Government propose to introduce legislation prohibiting the attendance of school-teaching councillors at council meetings during school hours?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: It is not proposed to introduce legislation to interfere with the discretion on this matter of local authorities, whose servants the teachers are.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman think it decent on the part of the hon. Member to canvass—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MANCHESTER.

Sir J. NALL: 39.
asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to release for useful purposes the sites of vacant land in Manchester which the city council have been prevented from using owing to the high values placed upon the sites by the valuation department?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the land acquired by the Manchester City Council under the City of Manchester (Medlock Street) Improvement Scheme, 1923. The question of the user of this site has been discussed between my officers and representatives of the city council, and after consultation with the valuation department the land has been placed in the hands of agents. In the event of a sale not being effected within, say, the next three months, the matter will be further considered.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is this plot for the purpose of slum clearance, and does it mean that the slums are to remain?

Sir H. YOUNG: No such implication would be justified.

Sir J. NALL: Is it not a fact that the site involved is one that was cleared under a slum clearance scheme but has not been used?

Sir H. YOUNG: I think that my hon. Friend is accurate.

Sir J. NALL: 40.
asked the Minister of Health what decision he has reached regarding the Manchester City Council's proposal to demolish 1,100 houses in Hulme and disperse 4,000 inhabitants?

Sir H. YOUNG: No such proposals have yet been submitted to me by the city council. I understand that the council is awaiting a report on the general policy to be adopted in connection with slum clearance in Manchester and on the practicability of dealing with this area as an improvement area.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Have the Government under consideration the proposal to guarantee building societies who are prepared to make abnormal advances to working-class tenants who will be displaced in this or any other slum clearance area to enable them to become owners of their new homes?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that that arises out of the question.

SUBSIDISED HOUSES (TENANTS).

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will request all local authorities who have had assistance from public funds for their housing schemes to furnish a report which will give the number of houses occupied by tenants who are known to be in a financial position which enables them to pay an economic rental?

Sir H. YOUNG: As my hon. Friend is aware, the management of houses belonging to local authorities is vested in the local authorities themselves. The preparation of such a return as he suggests house by house would be so difficult and expensive and the resulting information would be subject to so many sources of error, that I do not think the expenditure would be justified by its results.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Will the Minister give instructions to local authorities that any houses which are provided by State funds should be occupied only by those whose wage level justifies the rent subsidy?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is undoubtedly desirable that subsidised houses should be occupied only by those who are in need of the assistance, but it is not within my power to give instructions to the local authorities to that effect.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Is it not a fact that many local authorities have issued notices privately to occupants of these houses suggesting that they should find accommodation elsewhere and is it not a fact that that gentle pressure is taking effect?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is a fact that many local authorities are quite alive to the necessity for an effort in this direction.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will give the information in his possession as to the number of tenants in occupation of council houses subsidised by the State who at the same time are owning motor cars?

Sir H. YOUNG: No such information is in my possession.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that in some districts people of small means are unable to obtain subsidised houses owing to their being occupied by people whose means would allow them to pay a greater rent, will my right hon. Friend cause a careful investigation to be made into this matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: It is, of course, most desirable that local authorities should secure that subsidised houses are made available to those who need the assistance of the subsidy, but, as I have said, this is a matter within the discretion of the local authorities.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health when legislation will be introduced for the extension of rent control to decontrolled houses; and whether in such legislation he will consider provisions for rent reduction commensurate with the reduction in wages and purchasing power of the working class?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statement made by the Lord President of the Council on the 2nd June last regarding the proposed legislation to amend to Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 3,000 houses are being decontrolled each month, and that the rent of these houses are going up as wages and unemployment allowances are going down; and do the Government seriously intend to tackle this question at the earliest moment in view of the promises repeatedly to deal with it?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Member refers, and of the necessity for attention to the problem and for action of the sort that has already been indicated. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that the figures are accurate.

Mr. MAXTON: Why is it that the Cabinet, after over 12 months, are unable to come to a common decision on this

STATEMENT OF PRICES as shown in a leading technical journal of certain Building Materials in October, 1920, and October, 1932.


Material.
Description.
Unit.
Price, 22nd October, 1920.
Price 21st October, 1932.






£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Bricks
…
Best stock
1,000
4
17
0
4
3
6




Flettons
1,000
3
14
6
2
11
3


Cement
…
Portland
Ton
4
7
6
2
4
9


Lime
…
Greystone
Ton
3
15
0
2
10
9


Timber
…
Good building deal, 2½" x 7".
Standard
47
10
0
18
0
0




Flooring, 1" plain edge
Square
2
12
6
1
0
0


Slates
…
20" x 10"
1,000 of 1,200
36
10
0
20
2
6


Tiles
…
Best machine-made Broseley.
1,000
6
15
0
4
10
0


Lead
…
Sheet
Ton
48
0
0
21
0
0


White Lead Paint
…
Best brands
Ton
110
15
0
65
0
0


Glass
…
15 oz. sheet
Per foot
0
0
7
0
0
2¾


Board of Trade index figure for wholesale prices, taking the price for 1913 as 100.
September, 1920. 311.4
September, 1932. 102.1

COUNCIL HOUSES, BROWNHILLS.

Mrs. WARD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction over the allocation of council houses in the Brownhills urban
matter? Is there any danger of any serious split in the Cabinet and resignations over this issue?

Sir H. YOUNG: The answer is, none whatever.

Mr. HICKS: Would not the effective way of dealing with increased rents be to supply a very large number of houses?

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. MOLSON: 55.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any figures showing the fall in the prices of building materials since 1920 as compared with the fall in the index figure for wholesale prices?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sending my hon. Friend a statement of the cost particulars which are available.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether that statement will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Sir H. YOUNG: If it is desired that it should.

Following is the statement:

area; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have recently received one complaint in the matter, and I am making inquiries.

Mrs. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay down more definite instructions for local authorities, whereby people with small means and big families who are now living in overcrowded conditions are given priority in these council houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: As I have already said in answer to previous questions, it is a desirable object that these houses should be available for the persons who need them, but it is not within my power to issue such instructions.

SUBSIDY.

Mr. MOLSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fall in the prices of building materials and the recent fall in the interest rate on municipal loans, working-class dwellings can now be built without any Government subsidy at an economic rent within the means of the working classes?

Sir H. YOUNG: In view of the fall in building costs and rates of interest, working-class houses can be built at the present time by a number of local authorities at an all-in cost of about £350, inclusive of about £70 for land, roads and sewers, etc.; such houses could, without Exchequer subsidy or rate contribution, be let at rents of about 8s. a week (exclusive of rates).

Mr. MOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what hope there is that the subsidy will be done away with?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts 8s. constitutes one-third of the average weekly wage of the working-class, who ought not to have to pay so much in rent?

Mr. HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the cost of house building now is down as low as it has been since the War, and that this is a particularly favourable opportunity to go on with building?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not also agree that the cost is about double what it was before the War, and that 80 per cent. is the cost of labour?

NON-PARLOUR HOUSES AND FLATS.

Mr. G. HALL: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the average
superficial area of A-type non-parlour houses, excluding small houses for aged persons constructed under Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1930, and non-parlour flats, included in direct labour schemes and in contracts let by local authorities in England and Wales during the period January-August, 1932?

Sir H. YOUNG: The average area of these houses is 733 square feet.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLIDAY RESORTS (BY-LAWS).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of suggesting to local authorities, particularly at the seaside, that they should examine their by-laws now in progress with the object of discarding many regulations which tend to restrict the amenities of holiday visitors; whether he is aware that Paignton has recently expressed itself on these lines; and, if so, what action his Department proposes to take?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am aware that Paignton has expressed itself in favour of discarding restrictions on the amenities of holiday visitors; and other local authorities also have fallen in with the suggestion consistently urged by my predecessors and myself, that restrictions should be as few as possible. The publicity given by my hon. and gallant Friend's question and this reply will, I hope, stimulate them still further to review any old-fashioned requirements still existing in their by-laws, which may have the effect of unnecessarily diminishing opportunites for healthful and innocent recreation.

Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing model bylaws?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

LEICESTER INSTITUTION (POLISHED FLOORS).

Mr. PICKERING: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of Reuben Gilbert, an inmate of the Leicester Poor Law Institution, who died as the result of slipping on the polished floor, and to the fact that, although there had been several other fatalities previously from the same cause, the floors of the institu-
tion are still polished, in compliance with the orders of the Ministry of Health; and whether, in view of these facts, he will inquire into the matter generally and do all that is possible to remove such a danger, especially to the aged and infirm inmates?

Sir H. YOUNG: This inmate was an old man, unable to get about by himself, and was at the time of the accident being assisted by an officer. The inmate did not, as I understand, blame the officer or make any complaint to the authority of the state of the floor, and it is questionable whether the accident was due to that cause. On the general question, I have not made any order on the subject, but I am advised that polished floors have advantages, on medical grounds. A dangerously high polish should obviously be avoided and I am instructing my inspectors to bring this point as occasion offers to the notice of local authorities.

RELIEF.

Mr. ROBINSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is the general practice of public assistance authorities to pay to people living in common lodging-houses a lower scale of relief than is granted to those in other lodgings; and on what grounds this distinction is made?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not aware of any general and explicit discrimination of the kind suggested. A local authority may, however, possibly act on the view that the cost of maintenance of a person living in a common lodging house is less than if he were living in private lodgings.

Mr. ROBINSON: If I bring some information on this point to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman will he give it his consideration?

Sir H. YOUNG: I shall certainly be interested to see any information which the hon. Member will be kind enough to supply to me, but I must point out that this is a function of the local authorities.

Mr. LEVY: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this regulation has affected the overcrowding of smaller houses, where people live under less hygenic conditions?

WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that during the Recess his Department issued instructions to the West Ham Borough Council that the scales of assistance granted by the public assistance committees were to be amended and reduced; whether he will state whether these overtures were made with his consent and approval; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction caused by these reductions, he will issue instructions to his Department to collaborate with the West Ham Council in order that the original scales of assistance be again introduced?

Sir H. YOUNG: The high scale on which relief is afforded was the subject of discussion between the council and myself through my officers, and I understand that as the result of these discussions certain reductions, not of a very substantial kind, were made by the corporation. I do not contemplate action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discussion to which he referred took the form of an ultimatum by his Department giving the West Ham Council six weeks in which to make certain changes, and how can he fit that into the word "discussion"?

Sir H. YOUNG: I should say that the hon. Member's information was not accurate. The proceedings were in the nature of a frank and free discussion.

Mr. THORNE: Oh. You put a pistol at our heads.

Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Francis, his principal secretary, was the person responsible for these instructions and the intimation and threatened supersession.

Sir H. YOUNG: No officer of my Department was responsible for anything. The responsibility is entirely my own.

Mr. GROVES: May I again ask whether an ultimatum giving six weeks to the council fits in with the word "discussion"?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not accept the description of an ultimatum as applying to the action that was taken by me through my officers.

Mr. THORNE: Are you prepared to publish the letters that we received and that you received? That will show who is right and who is wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. COCKS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present position of the World Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on the 18th instant, to which at present I have nothing to add.

Mr. COCKS: Can the Prime Minister say whether the question of debts and tariffs will be included or excluded?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, the arrangements are in the hands of the League of Nations.

Mr. HANNON: Would it not add to the moral force of any economic conference that takes place to ask the Secretary-General of the League to get the non-contributing nations to pay their contributions?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILES (EYESIGHT).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 47.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the report of the recent investigation by the Ministry of Labour into the question of unemployment among boys and girls under the age of 18, in which it is stated that the chief defect in both sexes is poor eyesight; and if he will take steps to inquire into the causes of this evil with a view to counteracting it?

Sir H. YOUNG: The report to which my hon. Friend refers indicates the importance of the preservation of eyesight and the prevention of blindness, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the work which is already being done in this direction under the maternity and child welfare and school medical services. The whole problem is at present under the consideration of two committees, one of which is appointed by the Board of Education, and I will arrange for this report to be brought to their notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. GROVES: 50.
asked the Minister of Health if he will inquire into the circumstandes attending the refusal of a widow's pension to Mrs. Em. Pagan, 17, Albert Square, Stratford, E., Case No. R.O.A. 35,017, and give the reasons why the appeal was disallowed?

Sir H. YOUNG: Mrs. Pagan's application for a widow's pension was rejected on the ground that 104 weeks had not elapsed and 104 contributions had not been paid by or in respect of her husband since the date of his entry into insurance. Mrs. Pagan appealed against any decision, but her appeal was disallowed by the referees.

Mr. CROSSLEY: 54.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state or estimate how many men and women, respectively, in receipt of contributory old age pensions, are at the same time in receipt of wages for employment?

Sir H. YOUNG: The number of contributory old age pensioners in insurable employment for one or more weeks during the first half of this year, as indicated by the stamped cards received in my Department, was approximately 260,000 men and 48,000 women.

Oral Answers to Questions — MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. LUNN: 53.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations in the report of the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality?

Sir H. YOUNG: So far as the work of local authorities is concerned, the final report of this committee confirms the recommendations made in their interim report which were communicated to those authorities and on which action has already been taken in many districts. I have recently taken steps to secure the continuance of the system of confidential inquiries into the circumstances of maternal deaths in accordance with the recommendation of the committee, and I am considering what further action can most usefully be taken.

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the report is made available to Members in the Vote Office?

Sir H. YOUNG: I will certainly take note of that request.

Mr. G. HALL: 58.
asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have now replied to the circular on maternal mortality issued in December, 1930; how many of these propose to make improvements in their services; which local authorities intend to make no improvements; which local authorities have not yet replied; and what are the latest figures of maternal mortality in areas which make no proposals for improved services or have sent no replies to the circular?

Sir H. YOUNG: The collection of these statistics will take some little time, but I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the information he desires. As regards the last part of the question, the only available figures as to maternal mortality are those published in the Registrar-General's Statistical Review, which gives the figures for each county and county borough.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL DEMONSTRATIONS (PUBLIC SUSTENANCE).

Mr. CULVERWELL: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to forbid the expenditure by municipalities of public money on housing and feeding persons who pass through their areas with the purpose, not of seeking employment, but of political agitation?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have no power to vary the existing limitations on the legal powers and duties of a municipality. A public assistance authority is bound to provide assistance required by individuals in need. On the other hand it is not, as I have said in reply to an earlier question, their duty to take exceptional action either to help political demonstrations or to encourage the undesirable practice of making use of the facilities of the Poor Law for such indirect purposes.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if these political agitators visit London at the ratepayers' expense it is an encouragement to others? Will he take steps to have his answer conveyed to the local authorities, so that they may stop doing this?

Mr. THORNE: Will you define what is a political agitator?

Mr. CULVERWELL: You.

Mr. THORNE: And so are you.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Sir A. POWNALL: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government intends to take with regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service other than those dealing with stabilisation of pay?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Instructions have recently been issued with regard to the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service affecting existing temporary and unestablished clerical, typing and analogous staff. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the relevant Treasury circular, together with a copy of the report of the committee of official and staff representatives which considered the Commission's recommendations. Discussion on the other recommendations of the Commission is proceeding or about to commence.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

WAR LOAN Cox VERSION.

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total sum paid in brokerage through stockbrokers, solicitors, and other parties on account of applications to convert the 5 per cent. War Loan to 3½ per cent.?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The precise amount has not yet been ascertained, but it will probably be somewhere under £4,000,000.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of that went to the bank clerks, who did most of the work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. Friend will put down a question about it.

Mr. LYONS: May I ask whether, to prevent evasion of Income Tax, the right hon. Gentleman will direct that in the case of the whole of these payments the tax shall be deducted at the source?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the number of holders of War Loan stock whose addresses could not be traced and whose communications were returned on the occasion of the recent Conversion Loan and the amount of stock held by such persons; and whether he proposes to publish the names of such persons so that they or their next-of-kin may claim the money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of communications returned was only a small percentage of the communications sent out, but it would not be possible to ascertain the amount of stock involved without a great deal of work which would not be justified by the results. These returned communications do not necessarily represent unclaimed holdings. Probably a large number failed to reach their destination owing to the stockholder's omission to notify a change of address. The operation received such wide publicity that it is practically unthinkable chat any stockholder in this country should have been unaware of the terms of the offer and. he could obtain forms for himself without any difficulty. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. Section 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, provided that if neither a continuance application nor a repayment application was in force at the end of three months from the offer, the holding would be automatically continued in 3½ per cent. War Loan.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seems to know the percentage of the people who have not claimed, can he tell us the figure as well?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The figure could be obtained for the amount of stock, but it would require a great deal of work, and I do not think that the result obtained would justify the expense.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look up his answer again where he stated that it was a small percentage? Surely if he can state that there was a percentage at all he should be able to give us the number.

STAMP DUTIES (FOREIGN SECURITIES).

Lord SCONE: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to prevent a repetition of the losses suffered
by British investors who in the past subscribed to issues made in London of foreign government and municipal loans which have since defaulted, he will consider, when framing his next Budget, an increase in the stamp duty applicable to foreign securities with the object of discouraging the flotation in Britain of such loans and preventing the export of goods for which Britain does not receive payment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My noble Friend will not expect inn to anticipate the Budget Statement. I may, however, remind him that the flotation in the London market of any foreign loan is at present discouraged.

STERLING (EXCHANGE VALUE).

Mr. DAVID MASON: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the sudden fall in the value of the pound and fluctuations in the exchange, he proposes to take any steps to restore the value of the pound so that the notes will he equal in value to the gold which they represent?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made at Ottawa, which was as follows:
We do not see any prospect of a speedy return to the gold standard, nor are we prepared to say at the present time at what parity such a return should be effected if and when it takes place.
I see no reason for reconsidering this statement.

Mr. MASON: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment at a date convenient to the right hon. Gentleman.

CIDER (DUTY).

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the hardship to the hop growers, barley growers and consumers, manufacturers and retailers of beer, who through the beer duty alone now contribute one-tenth of the national revenue, by allowing apples to be imported free of duty from certain Colonies if consigned direct for use in making cider which pays no duty; and if he will, at the earliest opportunity, propose a tax upon cider in proportion to its alcoholic content compared with beer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the first part of the question, I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to foreign cider apples; such apples will remain liable to the general ad valorem duty. As regards Empire cider apples, these are on the same footing as other Empire produce which, as my hon. Friend will remember, are free from any duties under the Import Duties Act and are proposed to he treated on the same lines under the Ottawa Agreements Bill. With regard to the second part of the question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman in the near future consider the total revision of the Customs and Excise Duties, so that there may be a fair distribution among the different trades and consumers of those articles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt that, among other matters, will be considered by me before I make my next Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORT DUTIES (FOREIGN-MILLED FLOUR).

Mr. TOUCHE: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee as to the desirability of an early consideration of the request of the country millers for an increased duty to be placed on foreign-milled flour imported into this country, in view of the fact that the proposed duty of 2s. per quarter on foreign wheat will make the import duties on foreign wheat and flour similar in incidence and thereby nullify the existing advantage received by the home millers from the present 10 per cent. ad valorem duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have indicated on previous occasions, it is for the particular industry itself to lay its case fully before the Advisory Committee, and in considering the millers' application the Committee are of course in a position to take account of submissions such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.

IMPORTED TYPEWRITERS (DUTY).

Mr. LYONS: 70.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty received in connection with the importa-
tion of foreign typewriters into this country for the period January to September, 1932, inclusive, and the number of machines covered thereby?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The amount of duty paid on imported typewriters during the period January to September, 1932, was £14,546. I am unable to state the number of imported typewriters on which this duty was paid as the revenue statistics relate only to value.

Mr. LYONS: Does the figure which the Financial Secretary has given include any foreign-made machines that have come into this country from Canada?5

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have included all machines which are subject to duty.

Mr. LYONS: Are not all foreign machines subject to duty from whatever source they come?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the total amount of revenue received in respect of the duties specially levied upon goods imported into Great Britain from Ireland as from the date on which such special duties were levied for the first time?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on the 25th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of committees and commissions sitting at the present time, and by which Government these were appointed; and if he can give the approximate dates when such committees and commissions are likely to report?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Excluding Standing and Statutory Committees, etc., the number of Government-appointed
committees and commissions sitting at the present time is 25. Of these eight were appointed by the present Government, one by the first National Government, 14 by the preceding Labour Government, and two by the last Conservative Government. In 15 cases the approximate date when such committees and commissions are likely to report finally cannot be given. In five cases the report is definitely expected this year; in three cases in the first half of 1933; and in two cases in the second half of 1933.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

Mr. McGOVERN: On a, point of Order. I wanted to ask a question relating to a Private Notice Question. Is not this the time at which to ask your guidance on the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I will call upon the hon. Member in due time.

The PRIME MINISTER: Assuming that the Time Table Motion for the Ottawa Agreements Bill is passed by the House to-morrow, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday will be the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth allotted days respectively in Committee on the Ottawa Agreements Bill.
Should there be time on any day, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not putting this question in the form of a complaint with regard to the arrangement for the number of days allotted, which, as I understand, are to be added to in the following week; but I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider if through the usual channels it can be agreed that the discussions on the Ottawa Agreements, seeing that they cannot be amended, but can only be discussed, shall be severely restricted, so that we shall finish, say, on Wednesday next, and that the House shall specially devote the days saved in that way to a general discussion, in order that the House can pool its thoughts and proposals, in connection with unemployment. It has often been said that we ought in this House to discuss this overwhelming question without regard to a Motion of
Censure or anything other than trying to find some common agreement as to what we can do. Our proposal, seeing that we cannot amend these Ottawa Agreements, and seeing that we shall have already given five days to the subject when we finish to-night, is that, if it can be agreed by other parties in the House, we should finish on Wednesday, and then the House itself, for the rest of the time that was to be given to these discussions, should go into a discussion and a pooling of our ideas to see whether before many days pass we cannot come to some practical agreement, not as to ultimate solutions, but as to how we can palliate the growing misery all round.

The PRIME MINISTER: As my right hon. Friend knows, I did not know that this question was going to be asked, but I shall be only too glad to accommodate the House with regard to business. We must get the Ottawa Agreements Bill in order that it may be completely finished before we rise, but, if any general agreement can be made in the House, I shall be only too glad to announce it as a Government decision.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to understand exactly where we are in this matter. I am entirely with the request of the Leader of the Opposition. I am agreeable, and have so intimated through the usual channels, to have the Committee stage on the Ottawa Bill reduced to a fraction of what is being allowed just now. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that it should be cut down; I am suggesting that it should be cut down; might I ask why the Government feel it necessary to Guillotine the Bill, and where the Opposition to the Bill is coming from? Why the allocation of what the Opposition regard as an excessive time? Will the Prime Minister tell us?

Mr. LANSBURY: I would not ask for the arrangement that I have suggested except that I want the time saved to be utilised for the discussion of whether we can, all together, find some proposal that will help to relieve the unemployment situation.

Mr. MAXTON: I am only intervening to say that, instead of having one day for that, we might have two days so far as our Opposition is concerned.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am quite of that view.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Prime Minister tell us who is requiring the five days? It is not the Opposition.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in connection with a Private Notice question which I sent to you, asking for a deputation of hunger marchers to appear at the Bar, and which has been refused and returned. I would like to know if you could tell me the grounds for the refusal of that request.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that it is usual, on my refusing to allow an hon. Member to put a Private Notice question, to make a statement of the grounds on which I refused, but on this occasion I am prepared to do so. The grounds were that the question, in the first place, was addressed to the Prime Minister, and it is not the business of the Prime Minister to do what the hon. Member asked. It is a question for the House itself to decide whether any deputation should be heard at the Bar of the House. That was the prime reason for my refusing the question. The second reason was that the proper procedure on such an occasion would not be to put a question to any Minister, or, indeed, to me, but to present a petition from those who profess to have a grievance, asking for themselves that they may be heard at the Bar of the House.

Mr. McGOVERN: Might I ask you this further question? I understand from the Rules of Procedure that you have a right to summon people to this House to give evidence. I would like to know whether it would come within that Rule that you should summon people whose names I would convey to you to appear at the Bar of this House to present their case to the House and to the nation. Would the summoning of these people come within the Rule in that way?

Mr. SPEAKER: No; the summoning of anybody to the Bar of the House is a matter entirely for the House itself to decide, and not for me.

Mr. MAXTON: Would it be in order now, as a matter of urgency, to move that the House take these steps with reference to receiving representatives of
the unemployed hunger marchers at the Bar? Would it be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) to move that the House do adopt that procedure in this very exceptional case?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. I have said that the first thing that the hon. Member must do is to present a petition on behalf of those who profess to have a grievance.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss the following question:
In view of the fact that thousands of unemployed hunger marchers have arrived in London from all parts of Britain to bring to the notice of the Government and of the nation the evil effects of unemployment and recent legislation, namely, the means test, unemployment, health and social services cuts, the Anomalies Act, the taking away of maternity grants from the wives of unemployed men, and also the large number of evictions due to the complete inability to pay the existing high rents, we desire to know forthwith the intention of the Government with regard to this serious and tragic state of affairs in relation to millions of working-class homes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite understand. Does the hon. Member propose to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance?

Mr. McGOVERN: Yes, Sir. I am submitting that this matter is urgent, definite, and of sufficient public importance at the present moment to justify, in my estimation—I am asking your advice—my moving the Adjournment of the House in order to discuss it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I could not grant the hon. Member permission to move that Motion, because the Government have already promised at the very earliest date to bring in a Bill to deal with these very questions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I respectfully submit to you these points? I do not need to urge the public importance of this matter; that will be admitted. The two issues are those of urgency and definiteness. The urgency has arisen from the fact that large numbers of men and women are now congregated in the City of London, and a serious state of emergency has arisen, and I want to submit that, if a Government pronouncement
were made on the issues raised, it might allay the feeling that otherwise might be engendered. I therefore submit to you in extremely strong fashion that urgency has arisen. The Government have announced a Measure; extreme feeling has arisen on what that Measure will be; and that there is need for an urgent declaration to allay feelings that might arise is, I think, unanswerable. On the question of definiteness, I think that the question of the terrible suffering due to the means test regulation itself is a definite question, and the question of public importance is not, I think, in doubt. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to regard this as an urgent matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that the only question I have to consider is the question of the Rules of this House. It is quite clear that the fact of the Government having given notice to bring in a Bill to deal with these very questions at the earliest possible moment precludes their being raised as a matter of definite urgent public importance under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the fact that the Government have only announced their intention to bring in a Bill next Session—[HON. MEMBERS: "This Session."]—Passing it next Session.

HON. MEMBERS: This Session.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Passing it next Session.

Mr. McGOVERN: If I am making a mistake, I am prepared to be corrected. The Prime Minister will correct me. But that is not the point. [Interruption.] This is the gravest matter before the country at the present moment, and we are entitled to have a clear understanding upon it. While that intimation has been made, it might be a very small gesture towards the problem that is at stake. I want to submit, without appearing impertinent to you, Mr. Speaker, but with all due respect to you, that I have established, in my estimation, a claim that under this Rule you might put this matter to the House, and give the House the opportunity of deciding on the public importance and seriousness of the matter, and give us an opportunity, if the House so decides, to come to a definite issue on the matter. I am prepared to accept the decision of the House itself.

Mr. SPEAKER: As I said just now, my only consideration is to carry out the Rules of Procedure in a proper manner, and I must tell the hon. Member that under those Rules I am precluded from accepting his Motion.

Mr. MAXTON: [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely, hon. Members are not going to be too impatient about granting half a minute. My hon. Friend has argued with you, Mr. Speaker, the point that this is a matter of urgent, definite public importance. Your powers are unlimited in the interpretation of them. We do not challenge that in any way. The fact that a Bill is in contemplation dealing with a small fraction of the whole problem about which these men are concerned does not seem to us—and we want you to consider it—to be a sufficient reason for postponing action of the House on this matter. This House with its traditions has grown up as the Assembly through which people who have grievances can bring them forward. You, Sir, are the custodian of that right, not only for us, but for the whole nation, and I ask you if you do not think that this is a sufficiently grave matter, a matter which affects 3,000,000 of the population of this land, to justify you in deciding that you will give this House the opportunity this evening of discussing the whole question of the arrival of these men in London, the conditions which have caused it, and the things that this House might do to alleviate their sufferings? I put it to you that this is as great an opportunity as you have ever had of doing something the nation would like to have done, and I urge you to reconsider your Ruling that the Motion does not come under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given this matter the most careful and earnest consideration, and I have definitely come to the conclusion that I cannot go beyond Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot alter my mind.

Mr. McGOVERN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot take any more questions.

Mr. McGOVERN: All I ask is to be allowed this final word. Can you give me any guidance here as to any other methods of raising this matter in the way
I desire, because, to my mind, it is the only thing for which it is worth while being in this House at the present moment. I consider it the only matter of sufficient public importance, and I want to know if there is any method whereby the nation can voice its feeling other than by its representatives in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only tell the hon. Member that the proper procedure for him to adopt is to present a petition from these people who wish to be heard in this House. Having done that, he can,

if he likes, put a Motion on the Order Paper for the discussion of the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the London Passenger Transport Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 41.

Division No. 327.]
AYES
[4.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Conant, R. J. E.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cook, Thomas A.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Albery, Irving James
Copeland, Ida
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Harris, Sir Percy


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cross, R. H.
Hartland, George A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Crossley, A. C.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Atholl, Duchess of
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Curry, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Holdsworth, Herbert


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hornby, Frank


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmith, C.)
Dickle, John P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Doran, Edward
Howard, Tom Forrest


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Drewe, Cedric
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Bernays, Robert
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Blindell, James
Eady, George H.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Borodale, Viscount
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Bossom, A. C.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
James. Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Jamleson, Douglas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Brass, Captain Sir William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Nith'I'd., Hexham)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Ker, J. Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kimball, Lawrence


Burnett, John George
Falle, Sir Bertram G,
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fermoy, Lord
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Knight, Holford


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Carver, Major William H.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law, Sir Alfred


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leckie, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lees-Jones, John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Levy, Thomas


Clarke, Frank
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Clarry, Reginald George
Granville, Edgar
Llewellin, Major John J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graves, Marjorie
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Grimston, R. V.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)


Colman, N. C. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Lymington, Viscount
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst's)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Pickering, Ernest H.
Soper, Richard


Mabane, William
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Pike, Cecil F.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Potter, John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stourton, Hon. John J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Strauss, Edward A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


McKeag, William
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sueden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Summersby, Charles H.


McLean, Major Alan
Ramsden, E.
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rankin, Robert
Tate, Mavis Constance


Magnay, Thomas
Rathhone, Eleanor
Templeton, William P.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ray, Sir William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rea, Walter Russell
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Thompson, Luke


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Martin, Thomas B.
Remer, John R.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Train, John


Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Millar, Sir James Duncan
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wallace. John (Dunfermline)


Milne, Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo
Wells, Sydney Richard


Moreing, Adrian C.
Salt, Edward W.
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
White, Henry Graham


Moss, Captain H. J.
Samuel, Fit. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Munro, Patrick
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Scone, Lord
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Walter James


North, Captain Edward T.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Palmer, Francis Noel
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Patrick, Colin M.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Peaky, Captain Osbert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Peat, Charles U.
Slater, John



Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Petherick, M.
Somerset, Thomas
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somervell, Donald Bradley



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Thorne, William James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James

Orders of the Day — OTTAWA AGREEMENTS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [26th October], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which continues the policy of tariffs and preferences initiated by His Majesty's Government last year, further increases the already excessive burden of indirect taxation, and, even if it succeeds in diverting trade into fresh Channels, will do nothing to solve the problem of rising unemployment common to free trade countries and to tariff countries, which is a social problem relating to the constitution of society itself and incapable of solution either by a policy of tariffs or of free trade."—[Mr. Lunn.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The last time that I had the privilege of speaking upon a tariff Measure in this House a good many of my colleagues advised me to resign. As I sat down, I was advised very strongly in that direction. We have now acted upon that advice, although there may be some above the Gangway who think we have acted very belatedly upon the advice so vehemently given to us at that time. If it should be asked why it is we are now taking action which we did not take in February—and that point has been made frequently in the course of the Debate—this is my first answer, that in February there were placed before this House certain proposals which were stated by some of their foremost advocates as being temporary. That was the very powerful argument used by the President of the Board of Trade at that time. These proposals are not temporary, and the whole discussion that has proceeded upon this Bill is upon the basis that they are permanent. I understand that the President of the Board of Trade is speaking later, and I want him to direct himself immediately to that question. In his own constituency at the last election he pledged himself against any per-
manent reversal of the fiscal system. The Lord President of the Council, speaking recently at Blackpool, repeated what he has frequently said in the House and elsewhere, that these proposals are only experimental and that in the course of time—the time suggested is three or four years—they will have to be reviewed and, if they proved a failure, they are not to be continued. He said his party were not likely to be the party that would be tied to the carcase of a dead policy.
The picture drawn by the right hon. Gentleman is that after the lapse of four or five years some body in this country—it may be Parliament—is going to cast up very carefully the advantages on the one side and the disadvantages on the other, and, if there is a balance of disadvantage, this thing is to be wiped out. My suggestion is that there is no correspondence between that picture and the actual facts of the situation. This question never is decided in the end by logic and argument, because of the incessant war that goes on between the general good and sectional interest. That is why, whenever tariff countries meet together, they always come to the conclusion that restrictions are wrong but nevertheless they always maintain the restrictions or raise them. In theory they accept the Free Trade case, but in practice they are obliged to accept the Protectionist case because the general good is diffused, it is very often inarticulate and unorganised, and sectional interest is always organised, concentrated and powerful. When the Lord President of the Council suggests that at the end of that time we can have this academic discussion and consider the actual facts of the case, he overlooks that in the meantime powerful interests will have grown up which have a way, in every Protectionist country, of dictating to Parliament. I know we are in a difficulty in this Debate. The "Times" yesterday said we were "beating the air", and a suggestion has been made that we might get rid of this Bill in a day or two. The very fact that the leading newspaper in the country could speak of the discussions upon this important Bill as beating the air is a measure of the degradation of the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I do not understand the laughter of the hon. Member behind me. I hope later he will explain his laughter, which is at present inexplicable.
It is a very remarkable thing that a Bill touching most vitally some of the greatest issues that have been discussed from one generation to another is practically in every respect a foregone conclusion. It is to this that the High Court of Parliament, what our fathers called the Grand Inquest of the Nation, has been reduced. Although discussion cannot take place upon several Clauses of the Bill, and although the decision was reached before Parliament assembled, and the decision might just as well have been taken by a postcard application written to Members of the House, yet it is our wish, if we can, to find our way through this welter of inconsistency and contradiction, and there are some questions to which we ask an answer.
The first question I have to put to the President of the Board of Trade is whether he will elucidate what was said yesterday by the Dominions Secretary as to the position of the Irish Free State. Is the power that is contemplated in Clause 2 to be exercised or not? Retaliatory action was taken by the majority of this House not long since in dealing with Ireland. I did not understand that the 10 per cent. was in addition to be imposed upon Irish imports. I think it is of the utmost importance that we should limit ourselves to the action that we have marked out and that we should not alienate the friendly influences that we have in Ireland. We have a great many friends there and the wise statesmanship is to enlarge the area of our friendship. I believe that the denial to Ireland of the advantage represented by the 10 per cent. duty is not going to increase but will lessen the number of our friends. It was not made clear yesterday and I want to know what the intention of the Government is. I ask them to remember the wise words that were said many years ago that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom.
The Prime Minister has added to our difficulty in relation to the Bill by his speech on Tuesday of last week. He said:
We knew perfectly well that this Conference, if successful, could only result in something in the nature of tariffs and that foodstuffs would have to be included somehow or other."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1932; col. 139, Vol. 269.]
The argument was this, that we were committed to Ottawa, and Ottawa com-
mits us to food taxes. If that is true, why was it not said before? At the time of the last election there was a long discussion upon a formula between the different parties. If that had been put in the formula, the discussion would have ended in five minutes. The Liberal party went to the country and declared against food taxes in a manifesto of which the Prime Minister was well aware. Why did he allow us to go to the country with that declaration if, in fact, we were committed to this policy? Why has he not said it before? He went to Seaham. Did he say it there? He did not lack courage in going to Seaham. I should be the first to acknowledge the courage with which he faced that responsibility. but was it made clear there? Was it made clear to his colleagues? Did he tell Lord Snowden that we were committed to food taxes? Did he tell the President of the Board of Trade before he committed himself against food taxes? We had a Debate on 16th June, just before the Ottawa delegates went, and the Dominion Secretary said "I am going to deal fully, frankly and candidly with the situation." He never mentioned food taxes. Members got up on that side of the House and put the specific questions—it was put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—" What have you to say about food taxes?" and no answer was made. If, being committed to Ottawa, we were committed to food taxes, would it not have been a frank and candid thing for the right hon. Gentleman to have said, "That was a foregone conclusion. That is understood. Necessarily we are committed to it." But he said nothing. That perhaps adds significance to his words when he said that on these matters he always found it wise to keep something up his sleeve.
4.30 p.m.
In the course of this Debate we have been misled by many words and phrases. We have talked again and again about agreements with the Dominions as if, when you arrive at an agreement with the Dominions it is as though a man puts his signature to a partnership deed. What do we mean when we say the Dominions? Are we to have no regard to the opposition in the Dominions? Is the House aware how narrowly divided parties are in Canada? Although Mr. Bennett secured 137 seats at the last
election, and Mr. Mackenzie King secured 88, look at the figures. There were 1,899,477 votes cast for Mr. Bennett's party, and 1,715,178 for Mr. Mackenzie King's party. As between the two big parties there was the narrowest advantage in Mr. Bennett's favour, although he secured nearly twice as many seats. If you add the votes for other parties, Mr. Bennett represented a minority of the votes cast. Are you going to wipe out this opinion I Are you going to say that half of the voters in Canada cannot come into our consideration? If so, you will be making a very serious calculation, because from the evidence we have those who are in opposition at present, given the first opportunity, will be in the seat of power. Two elections have taken place recently. There was the election at South Huron which took place subsequent to the Ottawa Agreements. Five Canadian Ministers went down to South Huron and said: "The eyes of the world are upon you. You have to decide now following on these Agreements and if you do not return a Government Member the supposition across the ocean will be that you do not approve of the Agreements." In spite of that appeal, the Liberal increased his majority of 349 in 1930 to 2,000. Another election took place in Prince Edward Island and there a seat belonging to the Bennett party at the last election was won by a Liberal. I admit that it was by the narrowest vote. It was only a majority of one, but still, though not as deep as a well or as wide as a church door, it serves.
What does Mr. Mackenzie King say? Mr. Mackenzie King, representing certainly one-half of Canadian political opinion, spoke as follows in the course of the Debate in the Canadian House of Commons on 17th October. I quote from the "Times" of 18th October:
Mr. King went on to say that if returned to power the Liberals would proceed to bring back the tariff to the level where they had left it on going out of office and would go even further by establishing a general preferential rate of 50 per cent. for all British goods entering by Canadian ports …. He argued that the method favoured by the Liberal party as exemplified by the Dunning Budget of voluntary fiscal concessions made by a spirit of good will, was infinitely preferable to the bargaining and blasting policy of the Bennett Ministry. The former allowed trade to flow in free,
unchecked channels and eliminated the possibilities of friction, whereas the locked agreements now submitted were hard to interpret, difficult to administer, and productive of feelings of discord.
That was the authentic voice of Liberalism, and it is to that appeal we on these benches are very glad to make our response. I do not understand those arguments being taken lightly. I do not understand the Imperialism which says that we should only listen to Tory opinion in Canada and that Liberal opinion should be set aside.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Would the hon. Gentleman say that 50 per cent. is a free and unfettered flow of trade.

Mr. FOOT: I should certainly say that a 50 per cent. reduction was a much greater contribution to free and unfettered trade than the high restrictions you have at present. If the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will see what Mr. Mackenzie King did say. It is not my expression of opinion. I am telling the House what has been said in the Canadian Parliament. What he proposed was, not a 50 per cent. tariff, but a 50 per cent. reduction.

Sir J. LAMB: You said that.

Mr. FOOT: Did I? I will read it again:
And would go even further by establishing a general preferential rate of 50 per cent. for all British goods entering by Canadian ports.
That is one-half of the existing duty which is——

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Is it free and unfettered?

Mr. FOOT: It is much freer and unfettered than what has been done by this Government. What do you gain by it? Do you take the opinion of certain selected sections or are you, as you ought to do in this House, going to take all the opinion which has been expressed there? There is a further and more important consideration. When you deal with the Dominions in this way you are dealing with certain favoured individuals, classes of interests and sections and not with the Dominions. That, of course, is not so much my argument. It would be familiar to the President of the Board of Trade, because I took it from his book
entitled, "Liberalism as I see it." The second edition is not "Liberalism as once I saw it." It is "Liberalism as I see it." Ho said that preferential duties are not benefits conferred on each Dominion as a whole, but are fiscal benefits granted to individual merchants or manufacturers in the Colonies and Dominions.
Passing from that I ask the House to consider what were the intentions of the Ottawa Conference and what are the results. I used to learn in old history that when a Roman Consul took up his duties he always swore that he would observe the Constitution during his year of office, and when he went out he had to take another oath to say that he had observed the Constitution during that year. I would compare what was said in this House by the Lord President of the Council on the 16th June with what was brought back from Ottawa. Do hon. Members who were present during the Debate on the 16th June remember what the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said on that occasion. He said that what we were going to secure was, he hoped, freer trade throughout the Empire. What we were going to secure was freer trade throughout the world. He drew a picture of a suffering and distressed world afflicted with tariffs, quotas and restrictions, and now he has come back all that we have are more tariffs, more quotas than before, and more restrictions. Do hon. Members recall how he pictured the struggle of Mr. Graham and said that what we had to do to succeed where Mr. Graham had failed and to get a weapon? He came back with a weapon that was broken, because if you are going to deal with other countries you must be in a position to take off tariffs if they are to respond to the appeal. To the extent to which the Government submit themselves to a continuance of tariffs, they will not achieve their purpose, with the result that when they come to bargain and argue with other countries they will have to raise their duties higher still in order to get an advantage; and that is in line with the history of every tariff country in the world. Consider what the Liberal Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, said in Canada in the course of those debates. We hear about freer trade and we hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury speaking about freer trade, but the Liberal Leader
in Canada ought to know. This is what he said when speaking in those debates:
The Ottawa Agreement rates against British goods are so high that little if any trade could move past them. Against foreign countries the Agreement rates were high still. The only possible explanation was that the Bennett Government had used the Ottawa Conference as a means of elevating the Canadian tariffs higher than ever before.
If hon. Gentlemen however want some further evidence than that I will turn to a paper which was sent to me by someone of whom I had never heard who lives in. Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. He sent me a leading article which appeared in the "Halifax Chronicle," the leading paper in Nova Scotia, on 13th October. Here we have the "Halifax Chronicle" which does not sound any trumpets or ring any bells. The heading of the article is "Hope of Relief Fades." It speaks about the consumer who had no representative at the Ottawa Conference. I am not giving here what has been said by any British politician, but what has been said by a leading and responsible paper. Will hon. Members listen to the following:
The duty on cottons is reduced a third, but when it is remembered that the duties on cottons were raised variously from 13¾ to as high as 53⅔ per cent., the net result is to leave the duty more than twice as high as it was when Mr. Bennett came into power.
That is the freer trade. The editor does not say that. We heard the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) speak upon woollens yesterday and by the time he had finished there was not a rag left upon these proposals. The article proceeds:
With woollens it is worse. Duties on woollens in some instances were raised as high as 93 per cent., which, reduced by ¼, leaves the duty still more than three times as high as Mr. Bennett found it. The duty on woollen blankets is cut in half, but the duty was raised from 21¼ to 92 per cent., which leaves them still double what they were in 1930.
While the United Kingdom pressed for the stabilisation of the tariff and the abolition of surcharges and the imposition of arbitrary valuations and dumping duties by Order in Council, this long looked for relief is conspicuous by its absence. The farmer, the fisherman, the miner, the lumberman and the consumer generally will seek vainly for the longed for relief. It is ominous that in a number of instances, instead of lowering the tariff to grant a preference this was done by raising the tariff still higher
against non-Empire countries. We had first hoped for better things than these, but 'Ephraim is wedded to his idols,' the Prime Minister to high tariffs, in Which the consumer can find no hope.
This is how the bells are being rung in Canada over these proposals. An hon. Member behind says that this is a leading Free Trade paper. Do I therefore understand that he is only going to listen to a Protectionist paper?

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member quotes the opinion expressed by a well-known Free Trade paper in Canada, and I say that it does not represent public opinion in Canada.

Mr. FOOT: I am hardly able to recognise the hon. Member's claim to represent public opinion in Canada. I do not believe that he represents public opinion here as far as I am able to judge public opinion, and I do not know why this paper, which I did not quote except in its actual terms, should be dismissed from being a contribution to the discussion. All I know is that the gentleman who wrote to me had been following closely what had been happening here, had verified his figures and stood by them. I suggest to the hon. Member that, instead of throwing discredit upon the Editor of the paper, he should deal with those figures, which knock the bottom out of every argument which has been submitted to the House. What we give under this arrangement is certain and immediate. What we get is provisional and conditional. On the one side taxes are tangible and permanent. On the other side there are some advantages, I admit—it has never been a part Of our case that the advantages have not been secured—but they are hedged around with provisos and conditions, involved formulae and pious hopes. I ask the House to contrast the two. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Dominions Secretary, in 1930 was dealing with the proposals that were made then, he called them humbug. Those were the same proposals.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas) indicated dissent.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He differs then from Mr. Bennett, because Mr. Bennett said that the proposals submitted this time were essentially the same proposals as
were made in 1930. It is very difficult for me to find language in which to describe these schedules. I fall back upon the language of Edmund Burke, who would have said:
It is an accumulated patchwork of occasional accommodation.
But I always prefer the words of Cromwell. He would, I think, have described
them as
A tortuous and ungodly jumble.
Looking at the schedules, I would ask the House to consider what was once said by the Lord President of the Council. The right hon. Gentleman has my high regard. There is no man in public life outside my own party—of course, my party have the first claims upon my affection—for whom I have higher regard, but when I read these schedules I turn up what I wrote down some time ago of what he said. This is what he said at Edinburgh in 1923:
The whole structure by which we feed ourselves and import so many of our raw materials from abroad is so delicately balanced in this country that the peril of interference is immense.
Let that phrase be put side by side with what has been done at Ottawa in a hurry. Why did they do it? What is the explanation? They were all able men and they worked hard. When the Lord President of the Council said the other day: "We worked hard," he was entitled to demand the sympathy of all in this House. Why was it that they failed? I will give two reasons. In the first place, they tried to reconcile the irreconcilable. I heard the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), in a remarkably able speech last night, make a contrast between this country, with its crowded population, and those countries which in the last resort can depend upon their own resources. How can you reconcile the interest of the two countries? Our people went to the Conference and our ultimate ideal was Free Trade. On the other hand Mr. Bennett declared before the Conference and afterwards that his ultimate ideal was Protection. How can the two things be reconciled? Mr. Bennett said, after the Conference:
The Dominion Government"—
And I would contrast this statement with
what was said in this House a few days ago by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—
has succeeded through reciprocal concessions in manifesting the principle that Protection as we see it in this country can be used as an instrument of national policy to secure the equalisation of benefits as between natural and manufactured products.
Mr. Bruce, speaking in Australia, said:
There has been no radical departure from Australia's fiscal policy.
Let hon. Members contrast what Mr. Bennett said and Mr. Bruce said with what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said to a wondering House:
I think that goes to the root of the whole argument. It means that the countries of the Empire vis-a-vis the United Kingdom have abandoned the principle of Protection completely. What more could a Free Trader ask for than that?
I am tempted, following upon the Foreign Secretary, who used so many illustrations last week, to compare the Conference with a conversation that took place on a Newcastle railway platform when two men, a Scot and a Briton, met. They became acquainted and, finding that they had some time to wait, spent the intervening period in the refreshment room. They became friendlier and friendlier and when, later, they got into the train one said to the other: "This railway amalgamation is a wonderful thing. You are going to Aberdeen and I am going to London, and we are both of us in the same carriage."
What is the second reason for the failure? It is that they worked under impossible conditions. They worked under the fear of a breakdown. I will not stop to quote all the words that the Prime Minister said on this point. The primary instructions given to our delegates were not that they were to get the right Agreement, but
That was the body of men who went to Ottawa, charged with the first duty of coming to an agreement and not allowing the Conference to break down. That was essential.
It was to that that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) paid most attention. He was not concerned so much with the result but with the determination that there must be no breakdown. Whatever happened, there was to be no breakdown. How can you discuss these delicate and difficult matters if you are to do it under the threat of the political dangers of a breakdown? It seems to me that Sir Arthur
Salter foresaw precisely what would happen. He contributed an article to the "News Letter," which is the National Labour organ. I agree that that organ is not responsible for the expression of all opinions printed in it, but surely they are responsible for publishing the article. In June Sir Arthur Salter wrote an article in which he dealt with the Conference, and I ask the House to notice how, with the most remarkable prescience, he saw exactly what the danger was. He said that the danger would be that we should be robbed of our bargaining power in dealing with other countries. Later he said:
It may well be that a moment will arrive at Ottawa when it will look as if the various negotiations must break down. The political results to all parties of an admitted failure would, however, be so serious that there will be the strongest inducement to agree upon something"—
He underlines the word "something"—
even if the direct results are very limited in range. The danger is that, under the pressure of such an emergency, an agreement of limited value in itself should be based on an understanding, or an engagement, to maintain high tariffs against foreign countries. If so, we shall have lost our power to bargain, for the power to bargain requires that you must be just as free to take tariffs off as to put them on.
He foresaw the danger, and that danger has happened. That was the danger in regard to which the Foreign Secretary, in his masterly illustrations last week, quoted "Alice in Wonderland." Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the conversation that took place between Alice and the Cheshire Cat? Alice said to the cat:
Can you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
The cat said:
That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
Alice said:
I don't much care where, so long as I get somewhere.
There is one passage which I intended to quote, and it is of particular importance, but it seems to have disappeared from my notes. Perhaps I shall find it as I go along. Meanwhile, I should like to deal with the speech made last week by the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech upon which I congratulate him, because it was a speech of great power and one that I suppose no other man in this country could have
made. In that speech, although he did not in terms reproach us, he made a grave indictment against those who sit on these benches in regard to the action we felt compelled to take. He said:
I reproach no man because he takes that view, but I cannot possibly imagine how they arrived at it.
Why could he not imagine how we arrived at it? May I remind him of a speech that he made in 1916, when this country was at war, when the Government of the day were fighting with their back to the wall and when he, on unquestionably high grounds of conscience, resigned from the Government of which he was a Member and voted against the Government of which he was a Member. He knows that I am the last man in this House to impute any motive to him, because I am quite sure he was animated by the highest principle in what he did, but, having taken that action at that time, I do not know why he should find it not within the range of his imagination to know why men should resign upon a question of principle.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I made no reflection. The observation that I made was that in view of the fact that my hon. Friend, amongst others, only a few months ago thought that the problem that was facing us was too large for any one party in the State to handle, I, without reproaching anybody, did not understand how they could think that they could safely leave the National Government now.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I can only read the words of the right hon. Gentleman. He said:
I reproach no man because he takes that view but I cannot possibly imagine how they arrived at it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1932; col. 353, Vol. 269.]
Perhaps I may be able to help him to understand. He made his appeal to Liberals, a right which I think he long ago forfeited. He made his appeal to us, but he is no longer a Free Trader. Before this Government was formed he was a Protectionist. He says that he is going to remain. Why should he not remain in a Protectionist Government? What sacrifice can it make to him? What right has he, an avowed Protectionist, to make an appeal to us as Free Traders? He quoted me, or affected to quote me, from a speech that I made in August. If he had given the whole quotation in-
stead of taking one sentence at the beginning and another sentence at the end of the short paragraph from which he quoted, it would have been better. He quoted from the Liberal Magazine. He ought to be able to make better speeches than any other Member of this House, because he gets the literature now from both sides. He only quoted the first and last sentence, but in the words intervening there is this statement:
The National Government is not a coalition.

Sir J. SIMON: Will the hon. Member read the paragraph from the beginning?

Mr. FOOT: Whatever the crisis last August it is in many respects worse now.
It is, of course, a summarised report but the right hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that in the full report I showed that the crisis was largely affecting Germany and also that it was to some extent being made worse by the policy with which he was associated.
The National Government is pot a Coalition. We did not form a new party. We came in as Liberals and we remain Liberals. We came in as free traders, and we remain free traders. If we cannot do that then a National Government is not the place for us. The arrangement is purely temporary, and if you ask me when it will end I cannot tell you. I will only say this, that we are face to face with, some problems to-clay which are too much for any one party in the State.
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me a further quotation in which I referred to the Conference at Ottawa, and said that if it meant only self-sufficiency on a larger scale it would be a dead failure.
If there is the conception that we are to build a ring fence around the Empire and let the rest of the world go to the devil we are only repeating the mistake of the last 10 years on a larger scale.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why it was impossible for us to remain in the Government. We are rebuked because we have returned to party policy. The Prime Minister said that we have declared that the time has come to return to party government. We have not returned to party government; we have left party government A warning was given at the last election by the right hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) who told his people that:
A scientific tariff is one of the outstanding items in the programme of the Conservative party. That is a subject on which there is no unanimity of feeling, and if the Conservative party were to press that scientific tariffs were to be carried out as a result of a general election they would not achieve national unity. I do not believe the leaders of the Conservative party are anxious to force to the forefront an item of such pronounced party character. The only thing for a National Government is that each party should itself put on one side during the emergency any items which are of a party character.
What is the comment upon that? The last Conservative Conference at Blackpool, following upon a declaration made on the 12th February this year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham that:
Free Trade is as dead as mutton"—
—let Macbeth take care that some Banquo does not yet push him from his stool—declared:
Perhaps the most striking result of this policy of national co-operation is to be seen in the fact that within six months from the date of the National Government's formation the principle of Protection, embodying a clear measure of Empire Preference, had become the law of the land, not as a coup by one political party, but as the considered decision of the nation, to which Free Traders were able to offer no opposition.
You are carrying out a party policy and it will be better, therefore, if you carried it out under a party name. I say to the right hon. Gentleman who rebuked us last week that we have learned too much from him on Free Trade to unlearn it so readily. In 1924, on these very proposals, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the danger of the interlocking tariff, and to the danger of surrendering our own power. He said this:
But I do say from the bottom of my heart that if once we depart from the principle that each part of the Empire has to decide these things for itself we are striking a fatal blow at what is essential to the progress of the Empire.
Will he tell us why what was poison in 1924 has become a restorative medicine in 1932. I have here a quotation, which I am not at liberty to give because of the time at my disposal, but it is one of the most effective quotations from the right hon. Gentleman. He said that:
The cause of peace is bound up with Free Trade, and that blessed hope for the world can best be accomplished by a steady support of Free Trade.
In the same year in another speech he used these words—
There is no hope for Liberalism unless you have men who can say these things in the House of Commons, and stick to them.
I sat in the Gallery last week and heard his brilliant speech with profound admiration, and I recalled the description which Burke gave of a speech by Charles Townshend on American taxation, the most famous speech of that generation. Hon. Members if they read that passage of Burke will see in the picture of Charles Townshend a picture of the right hon. Gentleman making his speech in the House of Commons last week. Charles Townshend's speech, like that of the right hon. Gentleman, dealt with taxation and Imperial affairs, but for all its brilliance it was the most costly speech in English history, because it lost us the American colonies. If I turn to the President of the Board of Trade I must say that I regard him a little differently, more in sorrow than in anger. Although he is a fallen angel I am bound to say that his form has not yet lost all its original brightness. We have caught his clear accents and learned his great language, and having learnt so much from him we find it impossible to reconcile this Measure with his pledges at the last election or the teachings of a lifetime. If we have against us the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for St. Ives, in a Protectionist Government we are glad to know that we have on our side the Walter Runciman who for 30 years was the splendid champion of the cause which we are proud to maintain to-day.
The Bill goes in the wrong direction, that is why we are opposed to it. It means danger to the Empire. I ask my Conservative friends to turn to a speech which is unanswered and unanswerable, by perhaps the greatest master of political oratory in this country to-day, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). In a book which he wrote on Liberalism and the Social Problem they will find the answer which he gave to the Imperial representatives at the Conference of 1907. [Interruption.] Surely the Ten Commandments are even more ancient. If we must be restricted only to what is published and said in the last 10 or 15 years, politics must be left to babes and sucklings. They will find the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Epping very valuable and
valid, and they were repeated word by word by the present Foreign Secretary in a speech in 1924. Let hon. Members look at the arguments and consider what answer there can be.
I believe that there is great danger to the Empire, our proud and common possession, in this policy. The rights which are now being invaded belong to us. Our rights over taxation have been won through many generations. If you take that out of our history the story of the British people will be largely unwritten. We have made ourselves masters in this House, sometimes after civil war. We have made ourselves masters against kings and peers; but that mastery and independence will no longer exist after the passing of this Bill. For the first time the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to get up and say that he must listen to voices other than the voice of this House, that he must collect the opinions of others besides the opinions of this House, that he has to decide not by the mandate of the English people but according to the opinion of other Governments, who in their turn will be pressed by all the hungry interests who gather under the Protectionist flag. That is the situation, and I object to the cruel irrelevance of this Bill. I sympathise with people like those who come from Clydeside.
One hundred years ago we passed the Reform Act. There were great crowds in London and Bristol and Manchester who came and demanded the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. The crowds to-day have no interest in what we are discussing in Parliament. I ask those who are supporting the Measure what will the Bill do for these people? There is a great bank of discontent throughout the country every hour accumulating upon which seditious men can draw at leisure. What will this Bill do to lessen that discontent? The Dominions Secretary asked the miners' representatives to go into South Wales and talk to the miners. Will he go and tell the unemployed all about this Bill? They are not far away, they are only the other side of Westminster Bridge. Will he go and tell them that this is the Government's contribution towards solving the unemployment problem? [Interruption.] Is that so absurd? You can disperse a crowd by
the police, but you can only meet their grievances by policy.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I said that they would laugh at him.

Mr. FOOT: It is because I believe discontent will be accentuated and increased rather than relieved by this Measure that I join with other hon. Members in resisting its passage into law.

Mr. EMMOTT: In rising to address the House for the first time I can discover, in my own favour, no reason that would justify my departure from the practice that is usually observed on these occasions. I ask, therefore, the indulgence of the House, as I hope I may deserve it. Intervening as I do in this Debate when it is approaching its conclusion, I am well aware that the field of argument is already well trodden down; but it may not be presumptuous to hope that it is still possible to offer to hen. Members, though it must be in summary form, certain observations upon this Bill that will not be found to be superfluous.
The great principle underlying this Bill is the development of trade in the markets of the Empire. It has been urged that even if that is to be the effect of it, its general result can be only to change the direction of our trade and not to increase its volume. I agree that if that argument is well founded it would be very damaging to the proposals of His Majesty's Government. The question is, is it well founded? I ask leave to put before the House a few considerations which in my respectful submission to it compel an emphatic negative to that question. That we should buy from those who buy from us is merely the popular expression of a principle which I believe to be one of the first principles of commerce: that is that direct trade is better than indirect trade. It is better to make your purchases with those who make reciprocal purchases with you, than to make them with those who use the purchasing power you have given them in markets other than your own. The reason is apparent, and it is this: That in direct trade the return is both more quick and more certain than in indirect trade.
If therefore the Agreements made at Ottawa tend to establish a commerce with those who give a natural pre-
ference to the produce of this country, surely their effect must be not merely to change the direction of our trade but actually to increase its volume. Now it will not be denied by those who have experience of the Empire that there is spread throughout it a sentiment that is extremely favourable to commerce with this country. The peoples of the Empire strongly desire to buy the produce of this country. They do give a natural preference to the produce of this country. That is a matter that is really not susceptible of determination by means of statistical argument. Nevertheless there are certain facts which throw light upon the matter, and which I ask the leave of the House to bring before it. Calculations have been made which show, in regard to particular countries, the value of the purchases of British exports that are made by the populations of importing countries. Calculations have been made to show by head of the populations of importing countries the exact value in any period of time of the purchases that they have made of exports from this country. Those calculations display a result which is extremely favourable to the countries that constitute the Empire.
I am not going to trouble the House with a number of figures, but in view of the importance of this point I should like to put before it one or two. These figures are calculated on the basis of head of population. In 1931 the value of the purchases made by the inhabitants of New Zealand was £7 9s. The value of the purchases made by the inhabitants of South Africa was £2 14s. 6d. Contrast with these figures the figures relating to other countries. The comparable figure of France is only 10s. 11d., and that of the United States is only 2s. 9d. The comparable figure of Russia is 11d. If I may take the House for a moment back to a previous year I should like to do so, because it includes the figure for Australia, in a year when the circumstances which have contributed to the depression of the trade of Australia had not yet developed. The circumstances of the last two years have driven Australia farther down the list, but her true position is more properly indicated by the figures of 1929.
From these figures it will be seen that the value of the purchases made by the
people of New Zealand in that year was £14 11s. ld., by the people of Australia £8 10s. 2d., and by the people of South Africa £4 3s. 8d. Compare with those figures the figures relating to those countries that I have already mentioned. The figure for France is 15s. 5d., that for the United States 7s. 6d., and that for Russia only 6d. I had intended to give a few more statistics upon that point, but the exigencies of Debate compel me to be as brief as possible. I therefore content myself with saying that the figures show that if the proportion of our trade with foreign countries and with British countries is examined, that examination tends irresistibly to the conclusion that the trade which this country does with the countries of the Empire is of increasing, steadily increasing and almost continuously increasing importance.
I maintain that in view of the facts I have placed before the House it cannot be denied that the peoples of the Empire do give a natural preference to the produce of this country. I maintain that these considerations are fatal to an argument which was much used by hon. Members last week, and which, were it sound, would be extremely damaging to the proposals of the Bill.
It is not asserted that in no circumstances could the duties that we propose to place upon imports from foreign countries be justified by preferences that our industries receive in the Dominions. What is contended is that in these actual Agreements the preferences that our industries receive are negligible. I have observed that it has been stated that the effect of these preferences is to be compared with the lowering of a wall 7 feet high to a height of 6 feet, to enable a man measuring 5 feet to see over it. I trust that I shall not be considered indelicate if I observe that all men do not measure merely 5 feet. Five feet is not the upper limit of a man's growth, and I suggest that the position of our industries under these Agreements is quite improperly described by the pathetic image I have given to the House. I suggest that it is more accurately described by this image—a man measuring 6 feet 6 inches looking down over a wall measuring 6 feet.
But against this argument it is surely a most important consideration that in
Australia. and New Zealand the opposition which is being made to these proposals by certain industrial interests and by the Labour party proceeds upon this precise ground, that under these Agreements the position of the industries of the Dominions has been completely sacrificed to the industries of this country. But I do not wish to dwell on that particular point. I would rather go on to examine the competitive principle which is to be found, as the House knows, in Articles 10 to 15 of the Canadian Agreement. More particularly I refer to Articles 10 and 11. The principle that Protection shall be afforded only to those industries "which are reasonably assured of sound opportunities for success,"—that refers to industries in the Dominions —and the principle that United Kingdom producers shall have "full opportunity of reasonable competition on the basis of the relative cost of economical and efficient production,"—those principles, I agree, are expressed in wide terms. But it is to he observed that it is precisely in their latitude, if they receive a fair application, that we receive all we want. If those principles are to be fairly applied can it be denied that they give to us all that we require?
In referring to this matter last week, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked a number of questions upon the interpretation of these Clauses. He asked what was "reasonable assurance," and who would define it for us? After reading one of these Clauses he asked what in the world it meant? He wanted to know who would tell us what "reasonable cost" meant, and what was "efficient production" They were very important questions, I agree, but as I listened to the hon. Gentleman I was irresistibly reminded of those teasing sophistical questions with which too curious Athenians used to attempt to entrap Socrates. I suggest that Socrates might have replied to the hon. Member that a reasonable assurance is what a reasonable man would define to be a reasonable assurance. I suggest that he might answer the hon. Member by saying that a reasonable cost is what a reasonable man would determine to be a reasonable cost; and he might reply that efficient production is what a reasonable man would determine to be efficient production.
These questions, let us anticipate, will receive a fair and just answer from those authorities in the Dominions that are competent to answer them. To assume that these principles will be made of none effect by an application of them improperly unfavourable to ourselves, is to make an assumption that is not supported by one particle of evidence.
5.30 p.m.
If I may refer for a moment to the position of the Socialist party, it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that they should continue to oppose the principles of this Bill. This Bill is founded upon Protection, and so is the Socialist party. I cannot help thinking that their opposition is not the opposition of complete conviction. The opposition of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party is of a different order. The real opposition to this Measure comes from them. They believe that Protection and tariffs are the root of all evil, and that from that root no good can spring. But in the Debates of last week and of this week it seems to me that they have assumed a position which is somewhat vulnerable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (.Sir H. Samuel) developed a constitutional argument which brought him into trouble, into serious trouble with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I say nothing upon that matter. It is not for me to trespass upon ground consecrated to the law and the prophets. But may I put to hon. Members of that party a question which I believe to be pertinent to our discussion. If they disapprove of the system to be established by this Measure, then of what system do they approve? Do they approve of the system of Free Trade? I believe they do. Do they wish to return to the system of Free Trade? But the system to which they would have to return is not Free Trade, but the system of free imports, a totally different thing. If that be the system to which they wish to return, I put to them the question which was asked by Mr. Disraeli in the memorable Corn Law Debates—the question which has never been answered. How can it cannot be answered. How can you fight hostile tariffs with free imports? Do hon. Members believe that they can fight hostile tariffs with
free imports? If they do, then their belief is contrary to all experience. If they do not, then they ought to approve the principles of this Bill.
Surely, the essence of the matter is this. The purpose and the complete justification of Protection is the development of the national powers of production. The proper operation of a national system of production depends upon security of markets. This Bill is the first attempt that has been made in our time to obtain for this country security of markets beyond the seas. We have turned to those countries to which not merely interest, but sentiment and race and history direct us. We have turned none too soon. It is not our merit, but our fortune that we have found the way still open. But this is only the beginning of our work. This is not the keystone of the arch; it is the foundation stone. Upon it, in the days to come, we will build an edifice that shall be worthy of those whose faith and courage made the British Empire.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The House, I am sure, will require me, and indeed I do so willingly upon my own initiative, to congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) upon a charming and witty speech. Speaking as he did after the very eloquent address of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot), the hon. Gentleman had a very difficult task, and I am sure he will take it in all sincerity from me, that we all think he acquitted himself most honourably in that task. The hon. Member for Bodmin delivered the third of the broadsides which have come from the Liberal benches against the Government in this Debate, and, as I listened to him, my indignation rose higher and higher. The hon. Gentleman speaks with such moving accents that my Celtic blood is fain to to respond, but my indignation, as he spoke, rose not against the Government, but against the Liberal party. The speeches delivered from the Liberal benches become more and more powerful and the more powerful they become, the heavier is the indictment against the Liberal party itself.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin taunt the Foreign Secretary and the Government with imposing food taxes. Is there any
difference between making people pay more for their foods and giving people less money with which, to buy food? If the hon. Gentleman had as much capacity for indignation about present-day truths as about historical truths, he would not be in his present embarrassing position. If his ears were attuned to catch the accents of the present, as they are attuned to catch the accents of the past, he would not have been a member of the Government at all. A year ago his party decoyed the English electorate into support of this Government. They offered themselves to the nation as the Left Wing element of that Government, leaving the Prime Minister and the Dominions Secretary in the centre position. It was clear to every thinking man at that time, that if the present Government came into office they would introduce policies of this kind. The Liberal party were warned from these benches. They were warned by elder statesmen; they were warned by the Leader of their own party. But the sweets of office were dangling before their eyes, and they could not resist the temptation.
I have some sympathy with them because, in the last Parliament, it did not look as though the Liberal party would ever get office again, and, when office unexpectedly came so near, they must be sympathised with in their natural desire to get hold of it. Indeed some of the Liberal members of the present Government are still walking about with a bewildered air. They do not seem to be able to understand how they have got office, and, I assure them, that their bewilderment is shared by the rest of the House. The hon. Member for Bodmin delivered himself of several arguments, with which I could not find myself in sympathy at all. For instance, he twitted the Government on their negotiations with the Dominion Governments. When the Government negotiated with Canada, they could not negotiate with Mr. Mackenzie King. They had to negotiate with Mr. Bennett as Prime Minister. Surely it is pointless to quote the speeches of Opposition members in the Dominions. The Government had to negotiate with whatever Dominion Government was in power at the time, and if they have been at a disadvantage in Canada in having Mr. Bennett and not Mr. Mackenzie King as Prime Minister, then they have been at an advantage in the case of Australia
in not having Mr. Scullin as Prime Minister—so that the advantage has cancelled out the disadvantage in that respect.
Then the hon. Member tried to rouse our indignation over the innovation that is being made and the fact that the power to tax is being taken out of the hands of the nation for five years. The Constitution he says is being violated—a Constitution built up by centuries of study and labour. I cannot sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. I have not been able to understand, from the beginning of this Debate, the argument advanced from the Liberal benches in this respect. What is the case? The nation by these five year Agreements is putting the power to impose fiscal taxes and the power to review them out of its hands. What is the Liberal policy? The Liberal policy is to take down all fiscal barriers, to remove all obstructions to trade, to remove all quotas, to abolish all trade regulations between the countries of the world and, as they say, to allow commerce to flow freely across the frontiers of the nations. But would that policy make trade freer Would that make any Government more powerful? It would simply put the economic life of the world beyond the control of Governments entirely.
Hon. Members of the Liberal party are living in the 19th century. I except from that reference the hon. Member for Bodmin because his history is even more patriarchal, but hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal party who hold those views are living in the middle of the 19th century. Their arguments have no relation to it at all to the facts of the modern world. I am not speaking of those private trade agreements which have arisen spontaneously in the course of the last few generations, but I assert most definitely that the problem of the 20th century is for governments to resume control of economic forces, and unless governments reassume that control, in some form or other, the whole edifice of modern civilisation is bound to collapse.
We therefore cannot sympathise with the Liberal argument that these proposals are putting commerce beyond our control. We assert most definitely that in so far as the Government are approaching this business of commerce between the nations from the point of view of trade regulation—or as it has been called much more
appropriately canalisation—from that angle and for the reasons I have given, we think that, at least, the orientation of the Government is sound. They are walking in the right direction, but their steps are faltering, and they have no idea of their destination. I profoundly agree, that viewed from that angle, the distance between these benches and the Liberal benches opposite is more than the distance between these benches and the Government benches. The Liberal party will not be able to arouse the nation in this present controversy to any appreciation of its fiscal merits, because this nation and most of the nations of the world are coining to attach more importance to economic security and commercial calculations, than to the evanescent and ephemeral benefits of Free Trade. I do not propose to spend more of the short time at my disposal in discussing the Liberal party, because I believe the Liberal party is now entirely irrelevant in British politics.
The point of view which I want to put is this, that any Government charged with the responsibility for affairs in this country would have had to meet other nations in present circumstances and make trade agreements. If there were a Socialist Government on those benches, it would be one of the first tasks to which it would address itself, but it would not address itself in the way in which the present Government has addressed itself. It would, first of all, say without the slightest doubt that for the purpose of trade agreements and trade canalisation, for the purpose of putting in sound economic foundations for trade between the nations of the world, tariffs are an idiotic mechanism and have no relevance whatsoever to the problem. It is shown clearly by the history of trade between the United States and Canada that preferential tariffs do not effectively canalise trade, because in spite of the preferential tariffs given to this country, the trade of the United States with Canada has continuously increased, and in a higher proportion than has the trade between this country and Canada.
The point of view which we take with respect to international trade is this, that a nation must itself assume charge of its foreign trade and must accept the responsibility of making purchases; and we are prepared to undertake all the risks which that policy involves. Making
a purchase here necessarily means not making a purchase there, and it is undoubtedly true that when the Socialist policy comes to be applied to the commerce of the country, as applied perhaps it will be before very long if the present chaos is to be overcome, it will have to he experimental. It will be embarking upon waters which have never been sailed upon before, and it will have very little to guide it, but I think it is true that when a Socialist Government faces these fiscal problems, it will do so from the point of view of collective bulk purchase rather than from that of tariff regulations.
Nevertheless, we have to face the fact of this Bill, and this Bill cannot be underestimated. The hon. Member for Bodmin says the country is not interested in this Bill. We have to be interested in it, because, as far as we can see, it is the only piece of first-class legislation which we are going to have from this Government. It is the one contribution which the Government have to make to the modern economic problem. At least, it is the only contribution we have heard the Conservatives speaking about for a century. If they have any other contribution, they have concealed it from us completely, and we would like to hear what it is, but I do not see that the injection of fresh blood into the Government has introduced fresh ideas at the same time. Therefore, we have to examine this Bill from the point of view of the Lord President of the Council and to ask what effect it will have upon employment. There are 3,000,000 people unemployed in this country. If the Bill succeeds in giving a substantial measure of employment to people in this land, and in putting our foreign trade on a secure and expanding basis, the Bill will be blessed. It will be judged remorselessly from that angle. It will not, I am satisfied even now, be judged even upon the extent to which it imposes food taxes, but it will be judged purely and simply upon a pragmatic basis, as to what extent it increases the volume of employment and gives that employment additional security.
The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who went out to Ottawa had a very heavy task to perform, and I am not saying for a moment that they lacked in earnestness or in application in tackling it. I
am, however, convinced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's preoccupation with rounding-off a piece of family history interfered with his natural shrewdness in trade. It would appear from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman to which I have listened that his ancestor worship is only one step behind that of the hon. Member for Bodmin. It is characteristic of the Lord President of the Council that although he engages in many Odysseys, he always leaves the golden fleece behind him and comes home with less treasure than that with which he set out. This is the second time he has been across the Atlantic, and on those two occasions he has left treasure in the hands of the enemy, using that term in no offensive sense.
We on these benches resent most bitterly, at a time like this, when there is so much poverty in this land, when thousands and hundreds of thousands of workless people are on the march, when distress has hit sonic places in this land so cruelly—we resent most bitterly the application of food taxes at this time. We say it is an unforgivable crime of the Government to have gone to Ottawa to impose additional burdens upon poor people at this time, but we have to face the fact that they were prepared to do so, that for the sake of these Agreements, to obtain these concessions, they were prepared at this moment to take what they must know, to have been a. most unpopular step, namely, to impose taxes upon all foreign supplies of foodstuffs and many raw materials. In addition to that, they were prepared to antagonise the much more valuable trade with the rest of the world than we have with the Empire itself, for the sake of the concessions which they got at Ottawa, and I am compelled to assume that statesmen of their reputation, experience, and considerable qualities must have put a very high worth upon what they obtained in return for what they gave, because they could not have given anything more valuable than they have given.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a speech last night and, with his usual scrupulous regard for facts, made some references to the coal trade and made specific assertions as to the value immediately of the Ottawa Agreements.
His colleagues in the Government, when they have spoken of the benefits of the Ottawa Agreements, have all been very vague, very general, and not a single right hon. Gentleman has stood up at that Box and told the House of Commons in specific, concrete terms what it is we are going to have out of these Agreements immediately. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer summed up what he thought we were going to get. He said, speaking of Canada and Australia, that they had agreed not to protect uneconomic industries, and that they will adjust existing tariffs so that British manufacturers will have fair conditions in Dominion markets; and the agency for accomplishing all this is to be the tariff boards appointed by the Dominions themselves. There has been no statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in any less general terms than those as to the benefits which we are to obtain.
These trade beards appointed by the Dominions themselves are to be the arbitrators as to what is meant by these Agreements. We have already seen the value that. Mr. Bennett attaches to the Agreements. We have already seen, in yesterday's "Manchester Guardian," I think it was, a leaderette in which it was pointed out that in the case of cellulose goods a duty has already been clapped on of 20 per cent. against us, from the free list. I therefore ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will tell the House whether there is any protection for the free list, whether any goods are going to be taken off the free list. Mr. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada, has said in the Agreements that he will not increase any tariff without first of all submitting it to the tariff board, hut in that understanding the free list is not included, so that——

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Does the hon. Member refer to the free list of the Canadian Parliament?

Mr. BEVAN: Of course, to the Canadian free list. I refer quite definitely to the goods admitted free into Canada at present, and I am asking this specific question, which we regard as of great importance, as much doubt has already been cast either upon the honour of Mr.
Bennett or Upon the clarity of these Agreements, whether Mr. Bennett's promise or undertaking that no existing tariff will be increased without first of all submitting the question to the tariff board and having their report, includes also goods upon which there is no tariff, because in the case that I have pointed out, the case of cellulose goods, a tax has already been imposed.
6.0 p.m.
Most valuable concessions have been given—a tax on wheat., restrictions on meat, restrictions on raw material, an undertaking to put a tax on Russian timber and to denounce the Russian Agreement, and taxation on goods from the Scandinavian countries. Most valuable concessions have been made to the Dominions, but what have we got in return? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs said last night that we had got the steel agreement. He did not make that agreement, however; it has nothing to do with the Ottawa negotiations.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I am sure that my hon. Friend wants to know the facts. There were a number of interests represented at Ottawa. I mean that there were special representatives of particular industries, such as steel, wool, and so on. They were in daily contact with us and they met their opposite numbers. Having made agreements themselves, they brought, those agreements to us, and they were confirmed. If the hon. Member means that we did nut sit down and discuss the details, he is right. We left that to those who should know the business and we endorsed their actions.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hen. Gentleman man says they had their negotiations and then went to the Conference. How much wiser they were than going to the Conference first. Therefore, with respect to steel, we have had nothing at all from the Ottawa Agreements. The right hon. Gentleman made some reference last night to coal. He talked about the increase in the consumption of anthracite coal, but that is a purely competitive increase. No quota has been given. Canada has not said: "We will buy so much anthracite coal from you." The anthracite coal is being sold in the Canadian markets under free competitive conditions.

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, no. I hope that the miners will listen to the answer. The hon. Gentleman does not know—and I am acting on the assumption that he does not—or he would not make that statement. If he does not know, I will tell him that there is a preference. It is shown in the Bill, which apparently he has not read; in addition to which there was a prohibition instituted against Russian coal by Canada in favour of ours.

Mr. BEVAN: I am discussing the Ottawa Agreements. I am trying to bring into relief what those Agreements themselves have accomplished.

Mr. THOMAS: Then I must correct my hon. Friend. Surely he is speaking with the Bill in front of him, and if he looks at it, he will see that a preference is given to anthracite coal. If he did not know it before he spoke, I am glad to inform him now, and it may alter the trend of his argument.

Mr. BEVAN: I am going to deal with the actual figures, so it will not alter the trend of my argument at all. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the exports of coal to Canada as though they represented an enormous figure.

Mr. THOMAS: I gave the figures.

Mr. BEVAN: Yes, and I will repeat them. Taking anthracite and bituminous coal together, they consumed in Canada last year a little over 900,000 tons. Those are the figures.

Mr. THOMAS: No, they are not. It is no use saying 900,000 tons. They consumed more than that by many millions. It is no good talking about consumption. I did not deal with consumption. I dealt with the sale to Canada, not the consumption.

Mr. BEVAN: I am talking about the sales of United Kingdom coal to Canada.

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member said "consumption."

Mr. BEVAN: What does the right hon. Gentleman think the Debate is about? It is about the concessions given by the Dominions to the trade of this country. We are not discussing statistics of the cosmos. We are discussing the statistics
of our trade with Canada. As I understand it, Canada bought last year from the United States 12,000,000 tons of coal, and from the United Kingdom only 987,000 tons. The whole Empire buys about 4,500,000 tons of coal from us, as against about 38,500,000 tons elsewhere. That is the whole Empire consumption of coal. I should have thought that the right. hon. Gentleman, having given all these valuable things away at Ottawa, would have said, "Here is the most distressed trade in Great Britain; here is the one industry that has had to hear the brunt of the depression for 10 years; here is the one commodity of which we can increase the export," and would have done the same for coal as he proposes to do for pig meat and got a definite quota for bituminous and anthracite coal. He did not do that. Whenever he gave something he gave it very definitely. If the right hon. Gentleman had conducted railway negotiations as efficiently as he conducted the Ottawa negotiations, he would have lost his job long before he did. Here he gives the most specific and substantial things and gets nothing back. In the case of mutton and lamb, the most definite things are given to Australia and New Zealand. Definite quotas are given, and in the case of pig meat, quotas are given to Canada.
What are we getting in return? Simply tariff boards and the reduction of tariff barriers, which after they have been brought down will still be high enough to prevent our goods going in. We are also getting restrictions on foreigners which are of little advantage to ourselves. Will the Minister who replies to the Debate tell the House in precise language the extent to which employment will be increased in this country under these Agreements? Take the cases of mutton, lamb and pig meat. Although I know that no legislation has been introduced to deal with pig meat, nevertheless I understand that the report on that subject is to be implemented. In regard to mutton and lamb, the total increase in employment which will result in this country will be the production of something in the region of £2,000,000 worth in a total agricultural production in this country of the value of £250,000,000. That is less than 1 per cent. In the case of pig meat, at the end of three
years our quota is to be doubled, but the Canadian quota is to be doubled immediately. There will be an increase in value of the pig meat produced in this country of something like £5,000,000. That means a total increase of £7,000,000 in three years' time in a total agricultural production of £250,000,000—less than 3 per cent. Expressed in terms of employment, the increase will be 24,000 people engaged in agriculture, the total number of which is now 800,000.
Was it worth while giving food taxes for that? Was it worth while taxing wheat and restricting meat for that? Was it worth while giving the whole British market away to the Dominions, giving away the whole of the bargaining power of the British market, in order o get an increased employment of 24,000 people at the outside? You face the World Economic Conference with that lever already gone. We on tins side have often been accused of incompetence. Could our incompetence have exceeded the incompetence of the Government? When the right hon. Gentleman was guided by us, he described such terms as humbug. Now he has accepted the same terms. Who, then, is the humbug? I suggest to the Government in all seriousness that the charge which will be made against them will be a charge of incompetence for having given at the Ottawa Conference such valuable concessions in the British market that might easily have been retained for negotiations with other countries. Take, for example, the Scandinavian countries which are very good customers of ours in coal, much more valuable than Canada, and much more important. The European countries are much more valuable to our coal industry than the Empire. We should have gone to those countries and got valuable concessions for the coal industry, but now we have been stopped from doing that. The door has been closed.

Mr. THOMAS indicated dissent.

Mr. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. What can you give them'? You can give them nothing without violating the Ottawa Agreements.

Mr. THOMAS: I will tell the hon. Member. I gave figures yesterday showing that the countries which the hon. Member has mentioned sell to us more than we sell to them, even after all the
advantages of Ottawa. Surely it is a good weapon for bargaining to say to them, "Now let us equalise it, and you take from us more than you have in the past." That is the way to conduct negotiations.

Mr. BEVAN: I will not reply at any length to the interruption because I want to give my hon. Friends an opportunity of intervening in the Debate. I will simply make this short reply. Scandinavia is able to take our coal at the moment because we are taking her products in large enough quantities. If we do not take her products, she will not be able to take our coal, and the coal trade will receive another blow. That is the case we are making against the Ottawa Agreements—you are putting the most valuable portion of our trade in peril. You are damaging it, and not getting compensating agreements inside the Empire itself. That is the case we are making. Our case is not that you are making agreements, but that you have made the wrong Agreements, incompetent Agreements, and have added to the burden of taxation of the people of this country without any guarantees that additional employment will be given to them in return.
We suggest that the reason these Agreements were made, the reason why right hon. Gentlemen are incapable of visualising the trade relationships between this country and the rest of the world in realistic terms, is the Imperialist humbug with which all this is surrounded. They think they merely have to wave the Union Jack and the whole world will fall down. They think they can cover all the weaknesses of their policy in Debate by flag-wagging. If they had regarded the position realistically and said, "Our job in the United Kingdom is to survey the trade of the world, is to find out where we can get advantages in foreign markets anywhere, outside or inside the British Empire," and then had used the valuable British market as a lever for obtaining those concessions without Imperialist predispositions we should have got a realistic agreement of value to the British people. Instead of that, we have been dragged at the cart tail of the Tory machine; they have been caught by this Imperialist humbug, and have dealt a deadly blow at the recovery of British industry.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I can assure the House that at this late hour I shall not follow recent practice, but, rather, shall be commendably brief. I wish to make one or two observations on the very remarkable speech of the late Secretary for Mines. It was a remarkable speech, and it makes one regret very much that such eloquence and such powerful persuasion have been lost to His Majesty's Government for reasons which to some of us on these benches seem totally inadequate. In the last few days we have had a variety of explanations from retiring Ministers as to the reasons which prompted them to resign from the Government, but we have not had an answer to the question that matters above every thing else—what answer would they themselves have given two years ago, if they had been in power, to the Canadian invitation to assemble at Ottawa last summer? If we had an answer to that question we should know a little better where we stand. The late Secretary of State for Scotland said that these Agreements would not strengthen the bonds of Empire but were apples of discord thrown into Imperial affairs. Two years ago, in 1930, there were two opportunities to bring about freer trade in the world. The first was the Tariff Truce Convention, the second the Imperial Conference in the autumn of that year. From the Tariff Truce Convention the Dominions held studiously aloof. Would it have strengthened the bonds of Empire to have persevered then in such a scheme? From the Imperial Conference the Dominions retired disappointed, basing their only hope of future prosperity on a renewal of the Conference at Ottawa. We have head a lot about the speeches made by Dominion statesmen. General Hertzog said two years ago that it would be insincere to pretend that the Conference of 1930 had borne the hoped for fruit, and that they now looked to Ottawa. Mr. Scullin said:
Our people looked to this Conference to show us a way out of our present depression, but constitutional questions took too long.
I suppose that if those ex-Ministers had had their way once more they would have made it pretty certain that at Ottawa the constitutional questions took too long. It is rather hard to discover how that would have helped the Empire or the world. I do not think that even my hon. Friend the late Secretary for Mines would
suggest that a second Statute of Westminster would have made any contribution to the forthcoming World Conference. We have heard a great deal about what may be termed the "gentlemen's agreements," the general declaration as to future tariff policy. It has been suggested that they will not be honoured, that they are mere scraps of paper, but if a Government of which my hon. Friend had been a member had after protracted negotiations secured an agreement from a foreign country that their industries would only be protected if reasonably assured of success he would have come to this House and claimed it as a considerable achievement. If he could have told us that a foreign country would allow our manufacturers to compete on terms of reasonable competition he would have called it a victory for freer trade. Or, again, if he could have come back to tell us that our manufacturers can appear before a foreign tariff board I can almost hear him calling that a victory for international co-operation. Why should a European Tariff Truce be a victory for Liberal ideas, and an Empire Tariff Truce the last resort of bankrupt Toryism?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the tariffs which still remain in Canada are very much higher than those of the other countries to which he is referring?

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: That point scarcely hears scrutiny. An analysis shows that the Canadian preference increases secured by the abolishing or the lowering of duties against Great Britain affects a total trade of some £18,000,000, of which our share is about one half, whereas the preference increased by increasing the duties against foreign goods affects a total trade of £7,000,000, of which our share is about £1,800,000. We have heard one or two references to British agriculture. No one here can deny the desperate plight of agriculture, and those of us who are vitally interested in that industry hope there will be a speedy opportunity to discuss it. It is not too much to say that our deliberations here and the action we take or fail to take in the course of the next few weeks will decide the fate, perhaps, for a whole generation, of rural Britain, and it would be a tragic irony if the stupendous achievements of the last few months were neutralised by an agricultural collapse at home. But because we know this there
is no reason why we should condemn these Agreements as offering nothing to British agriculture. They recognise the vital principle of the control of meat imports, a principle which had to be conceded if any restoration of prosperity to home agriculture was possible. Apart from that they include duties on a variety of goods, which duties are pretty nearly the duties which the Central Chamber of Agriculture has been advocating for many years.
My hon. Friend said in the course of his speech that our hands were tied, and that we would not be able to succeed where Mr. Graham failed in the sphere of international negotiations, but facts, which are often too strong for the Liberal party, have proved too strong for them once again. Foreign nations know better. Let hon. Members study the vernacular press abroad during the last few weeks. In Italy there is a movement for a reciprocal revision of tariff barriers; in Sweden there has been a declaration that the time was never more propitious for an Anglo-Swedish trade treaty; in America we see it stated that the British Empire has become a powerful bargaining factor in world tariff questions, and that an impetus and not a check has been given to the movement to revise the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In addition to that, my hon. Friend's own son, the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), who has lately been in Denmark as the guest of the Danish Government, must have noticed that the Danish people, when selling 67 per cent. of all their exports in our markets, did not think much about giving concessions to us, but that now that they have to pay for that privilege there is a growing anxiety to conclude a trade agreement.
I was surprised that the late Secretary for Mines closed his very moving speech by suggesting that constitutional etiquette had been violated. Every letter which the late Secretary for Mines wrote from the Department bore on top of the notepaper the address "Cromwell House," and it is a curious reflection that such an admirer of the Great Protector should come to this House, which he once desecrated, and ask that constitutional etiquette should be further preserved. The constitutional objections of the late Home Secretary have been more than answered in this House. Most of us here would not mind very much if there had
been no good precedents for, after all, the alternative to making Agreements of this kind was to do nothing, to let the world depression continue, so that nothing that any Parliament could do would help very much. If that had been the case, when we met in a few years time to consider the history of the Ottawa Conference, we might then be regretting not that the power of Parliament had been slightly curtailed by one Resolution, but, rather, that in these momentous times we had not taken the step which the Government have taken to avert disaster.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: The Debate to-day on the Second Reading of this Bill to give legislative effect to the Ottawa Agreements has been marked by some very excellent speeches. I was very much impressed by the speech of the late Secretary for Mines, and I think it was more fitting that that speech should have been delivered from the place where it was rather than from the Front Bench opposite; although I should add that I know of no Minister who has left behind him kinder feelings among all those who were brought into contact with him in the course of his official duties. I can speak on behalf of all the mining Members in the House in saying that we very much regret his departure. There is scarcely any time to deal with the speeches which have been delivered to-day, but I wish to refer to the remarkable speech of the Prime Minister on Tuesday of last week. He endeavoured to justify these Agreements by saying that at Ottawa Conservatives, Liberals and Labour were all represented. We would like to know who were the Labour representatives representing Labour at Ottawa. Not a man who went to Ottawa on the delegation could be said to have represented organised labour in this country, and since the Agreements have become known, no Labour Organisation has given approval to them.
6.30 p.m.
The Prime Minister also said that everyone who had been in direct contact with representatives of the Dominions knew that this was the kind of agreement which was going to be made. He said they knew perfectly well that if the Conference were to be successful it could only result in something in the nature of tariffs, and that foodstuffs would have to be included somehow or other. Did the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs know after
the conclusion of the Imperial Conference in 1930 that at the next Imperial Conference, the one which took place this year, there would be food taxes, that there would be these protective duties imposed? There could be no such understanding. Could the right hon. Gentleman himself say that there was an understanding of the kind? No one was more definite than he, until May of last year, as to what was likely to happen if food taxes were imposed. I have here a quotation from a newspaper of which the right hon. Gentleman probably heard before he became a Member of the National Government. The "Derby Democrat," in March, 1931, contained an article written by the right hon. Gentleman in an endeavour to create some enthusiasm among the electors of Derby and at the same time to point out to them the work which the Labour Government did while they were in office. He intended also to warn them of what was likely to happen if a Tory Government took the place of the. Labour Government. He said:
I shudder to think what would have happened to this country had the Tory party been in office at this period, with its cry of 'economy and tariffs.' The Tory policy is the expression of a growing revolt of the privileged against every effort to advance towards equality of opportunity and a better standard of life for the workers. Mr. Baldwin has made it quite clear that if the Conservative party is returned to power, the schemes of work will be stopped"—
They are stopped—
and then will come drastic reform of unemployment insurance, which means another return to the poor relief method. And when Mr. Baldwin speaks of the necessity of reducing taxation he has in mind something beyond cuts in expenditure. What the Conservative party is after is the reduction of direct taxation and a big transfer to the domestic budgets of the workers, by means of the tariff and food-tax policy.
That was 12 months after the Imperial Conference of 1930, and, strange to say, the very first convert to the policy of Mr. Baldwin and the Tory party was the right hon. Gentleman himself. He is now assisting to put into operation the policy, which he warned the electors of Derby would be put into operation, if a Tory Government were returned. Well, I just wonder what is the difference between a Tory Government and the present Government. In that I am reminded of
the story which was told by Lord Snowden standing at the Government Box, of a young man who was sweethearting with one of twin sisters. The difficulty was for him to discriminate between one sister and the other. He was asked how he was able to do it. He said that he never tried. If I was asked to discriminate between a Tory Government and the present Government it would be very difficult.
I am not going to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, other than to ask him whether he was aware when he joined the Government, that he was likely to go to Ottawa and that he would have to agree to the imposition of food taxes? Did he realise that he would be asked to have a tax upon wheat and a quota for meat? The right hon. Gentleman himself was very indignant, in February of this year, when we quoted newspaper statements against him where he told the electors of St. Ives that, if he was returned as their Member, he would not in any circumstances agree to a tax upon food. When we used those quotations against him in February of this year he said: "I did not mean food, I simply meant wheat and meat." I would like to ask where is the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman now. Does he now agree and believe in a tax upon wheat and meat or food? I am astounded that, since the present Government have been in office, including the effect of these Ottawa Agreements, no less than £150,000,000 worth of foodstuffs imported into this country is to be taxed. It must inevitably mean an increase in the cost of living.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and hon. Members opposite will say, "No," but the Australians are under no delusion as to what it is going to mean. Mr. Latham, the Federal Attorney-General, speaking in Melbourne on 10th October this year, said:
The Agreements offer fair advantages to Australia, but for Great Britain they involve the imposition of taxes on food, and restrictive arrangements which would increase food prices.
The working people of this country will be under no delusion as to what these taxes are to be on food. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday referred to these Agreements as the lever for bargaining
with those countries who have asked us to meet them to negotiate, and he referred to the fact that there was a trade balance in favour of Denmark of some £43,000,000, in favour of Sweden £11,000,000 and of the Argentine £31,000,000. He went on to refer to Russia, the United States and other countries.
Is it only foreign countries that have a favourable trade balance against this country? Did those who negotiated the Agreements at Ottawa realise that there is scarcely a Dominion that has not a favourable trade balance against this country? Why, the Lord President of the Council himself referred to the fact that, in the year 1930, there was a trade balance in favour of the Dominions of nearly £100,000,000. Did those who negotiated the Agreements at Ottawa use that as a lever to get better Agreements in favour of this country, as the right hon. Gentleman said it was going to be used by this Government, in the negotiations with other countries? Not only so; the Lord President of the Council himself referred to the fact that 90 per cent. of Dominion produce imported into this country came in duty free. He referred of course to the fact that the duty which was imposed was very largely a revenue duty, upon tea, wines and things of that kind.
To hear the speeches from the Tory side of the House, one would imagine that this country has done nothing for the Dominions. This country has given the Dominions almost everything they have asked for, and now, when we ask for something in return, we get the miserable Agreements to which this Bill is to give legislative effect. The Lord President of the Council referred to the part played by this country in the development of the Dominions. He said that before the War it was estimated that about a half of the £3,800,000,000 invested overseas was placed in Empire countries, and that since the War, out of a total of £1,400,000,000 sent overseas, £848,000,000 was sent to the Dominions. [An HON. MEMBER: "There has been no default!"] There may not have been any default but I should like to ask what the opinion of some of the people, who have invested certain moneys in the Dominions, is at the present time. I have in mind the Grand Trunk Railway, and things of that kind.
Where are some of the Domnions sending, shall I say the major portion, of their goods, at the present time? The value of the market of this country to New Zealand in 1931 is estimated as 87.7 of her products; for Australia the figure is 49.8 per cent. and for South Africa 43.4 per cent. One could go on pointing out the advantages which the Dominions have received from this country. It is no use those who were responsible for negotiating these Agreements saying that they had such a very difficult time. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Forbes, speaking in Wellington on 12th October, said that the outstanding feature of the Agreement was the generosity of Great Britain. New Zealand manufacturers would be pleasantly surprised that so little was asked in return for concessions substantially beneficial to primary producers. I think that that is the general opinion of the Dominions. They were very much surprised at the generosity of those who represented this nation to bargain away the rights of our people.
Dealing with the Agreements and, in the presence of the President of the Board of Trade, who is to reply, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the statement which appeared in some of the newspapers yesterday as to Mr. Bennett removing from the free list a certain commodity which, it was understood, was to be admitted into Canada duty free? I think the House should know this, before these Agreements are ratified. If the Canadian Government has the right to vary these duties, they ought not to deny the right to this Parliament to vary the duties. I have read with very great interest Article 3 of the Agreement and I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, before any duty is varied in the Dominions, as to whether this country or the Government will be consulted; whether the right is given to Canada to interfere with the work of the Government of this country, and whether we have equal rights with regard to the variation of these different duties?
Looking through this Bill and the Agreements, one can see the extent to which duties will be imposed upon the British consumer, and a few extraordinary things will be noted. Foreign wheat, as we know, is to be taxed 2s. per quarter.
That is not the full extent of the imposition on the British consumer of flour. The levy under the home wheat quota, which was, of course, supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and those who acted with him, amounts, so we are told, to 2s. 3d. per sack on all flour produced in this country. This is estimated to be equal to a duty on foreign wheat of something like 2s. 8½d. per quarter. If that is so, the duty of 2s., which this Agreement is to impose upon foreign wheat, plus the effect of the wheat quota, must mean that foreign wheat imported into this country will have to stand a duty of something like 4s. 8½d. per quarter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles. I trust that my figures are wrong. I hope they are, but these figures have been worked out by someone who has been actively interested in the trade.
It was the proud boast of this country, before the Wheat Quota came into operation, that we had the cheapest 4-lb. loaf of wheaten bread in Europe. Since the Wheat Quota came into operation there has been a change, and now, with this additional duty, it must mean that the price of bread in this country will rise to the price prevailing in a number of the capitals of Europe, where the price of bread is in some cases almost double what it is in this country. Before leaving this question of wheat, might I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the House whether Canadian wheat shipped from American ports will be liable to this duty of 2s. per quarter? It is very necessary that that matter should be cleared up, because I understand that there is a good deal of misunderstanding regarding it at the present time.
Then I come to the import duty on butter, which is going to have a very serious effect upon prices in this country. We know, and, if I may say so, we deplore the fact, that, so far as can be ascertained, only about 850,000 cwts. of butter are produced in this country, although we consume over 8,000,000 cwts. It is true to say that the largest importer of butter into this country is, and has been for some years, Denmark, but Australia and New Zealand between them have recently been sending to this country almost the same quantity of butter as Denmark. Denmark increased
her supply by 6 per cent. in 1931 as compared with 1930, while New Zealand increased her supply by 24 per cent., and Australia by no less than 64 per cent.; and at the present time we are importing from New Zealand 97 per cent. of the total New Zealand exports, and from Australia 90 per cent. of the Australian exports.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he referred to the need for increasing wholesale prices, and said that the producer should have a higher price for the product which he produces. Have the Dominions done all that they might have done with regard to increasing the price of butter? I find that, as far as New Zealand and Australia are concerned, the price at which butter is imported into this country is shillings per cwt. cheaper than the price of butter imported from Denmark. Taking the figures for 1929, New Zealand butter—[Interruption]—I will leave it to the right hon. Gentleman if he likes. These figures are contained in a book supplied by the Empire Marketing Board, and I will quote figures taken from that book. It says that in 1929 New Zealand butter was 173s. 9d. per cwt., Australian butter 170s. per cwt., and Danish butter 182s. 3d. per cwt. In 1931, New Zealand butter was 114s. 3d. per cwt., Australian 110s. 6d. and Danish 130s. These facts are taken, as I have said, from a publication issued by the Empire Marketing Board.
Turning to the question of bacon, I understand from this Agreement that Canada is to be given a quota up to a maximum of 2,500,000 cwts. of bacon. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman how that quota was arrived at? Has Canada in any previous year imported into this country 2,500,000 cwts. of bacon? Have the imports of bacon from all the Dominions amounted to 2,500,000 cwts.? The truth is that last year Canada imported into this country 50,000 cwts. of bacon and 70,000 cwts. of ham, and Canada is to have her quota of bacon increased from 120,000 cwts. to 2,500,000. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his reply, to say how he accounts for that increase?
I do not want to take up too much of the right hon. Gentleman's time, but be will understand the difficulty. I want to
deal with the question of coal. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday was very flippant, if I may say so, in his statement regarding the advantages which coal is going to get from this Agreement. Might I tell him, and the Government through him, that the coal industry, and especially the coal export industry of this country, have been most callously treated by them since they came into office? Here is an industry which is dependent very largely upon its exports. Something like 50,000,000 tons of coal were exported and used as bunkers from this country. Something like 200,000 men and their dependants are dependent upon coal export. I personally asked the right hon. Gentleman, before he went to Ottawa, whether he would give special attention to this question of coal export, and whether it was possible to take someone to Ottawa who understood the difficulties of coal export; but, unfortunately, no one went, and the matter was left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
Let us realise where the coal which is exported from this country goes. Does it go to the Dominions? No; almost nine-tenths of the coal exported from this country goes to our near European neighbours. I have the figures for the first nine months of this year, which show that France took 6,600,000 tons, Italy 3,800,000 tons, and Germany 1,700,000 tons. Six of these near European countries took 16,250,000 tons of coal out of the 29,000,000 tons that we exported, and if we include Sweden, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Finland, no less than 19,500,000 tons of the 29,000,000 tons exported from this country were exported to these near European countries.
The coal export trade is of more value to this country than the total export trade of almost any of the Dominions. It is of more value to this country than the combined trade of Canada and New Zealand together, or than the combined trade of Australia and New Zealand together, and yet, as far as we have been able to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman, the only concession, if any, that has been given to coal is that anthracite is to be admitted into Canada free of any duty. Was not that the position before the Ottawa Conference Of course it was, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. It is the question of price and the question of quality that
has guaranteed for our anthracite coal a market in Canada. The right hon. Gentleman, during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) last night, said that not a single ton of coal had been affected as a result of the tariff policy of this country, but during the first nine months of this year we have lost to just five countries—Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and the Netherlands—a market for no less than 3,500,000 tons of coal very largely as a result of the tariff policy of this country. [Interruption.] I would like the Government to publish the letters which have passed between them and Germany regarding the question of coal restrictions, and I would like them to disclose to the House the reasons given by various countries. Eight of those countries which import coal from this country have restrictions and quotas against coal exports from this country, and it is true to say that nearly 500,000 men directly and indirectly employed, and their dependants, are affected, or likely to be affected, as a result of these agreements.
I note with a good deal of interest that it is likely that negotiations will be opened up with certain countries regarding this question. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said on Monday that 19 countries had asked that negotiations should be opened up between them and this country, and the Government had agreed to open up negotiations with five of those countries. Might I ask the President of the Board of Trade, seeing that this offers just one little hope that some relief will come to our coal export trade, to expedite those negotiations, and to see that coal shall have more consideration in those negotiations than it had in the negotiations which took place in Canada? It can rightly be said that confidence and good will between nations and Empires are the essence of the world problem, and that monetary devices are of no avail as long as most nations are angry and suspicious, and economic nationalism drives them to commit economic suicide by killing their own and one another's trade. This Agreement is assisting in that process. We say that the wealth of the world is for the peoples of the world, and that those who would prevent the distribution of that wealth are responsible for causing tens of millions of people to suffer and are committing a sin against natural law.

7.0 p.m.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have not previously had the privilege of addressing the House or the Committee of Ways and Means on the Ottawa Agreements, and I hope that the House will grant me its indulgence if I go into some of the details which happen to be within my particular purview. But, before I do that, I should like to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) on two or three questions which he has put to me. In the first place, with regard to any variation of the Canadian Agreement, there can be no variation of that Agreement without consultation between the two Governments. That applies to all the commodities which come under the Agreement. In the second place, my hon. Friend wants to know whether wheat shipped from New York, but of Canadian origin, would be subject to the 2s. duty. I can assure him that the country of origin and consignment decides whether or not a commodity is Empire grown. My hon. Friend also asked me a question about butter, which I am afraid I do not quite clearly understand. He drew our attention to the fact that New Zealand prices appeared in each of the last two years to have been below those of Danish butter. My hon. Friend rejoices in it. He does not take the New Zealand view—that New Zealand should claim, and ought to obtain exactly the same prices as Danish butter. I may tell him it depends almost entirely upon the quality of the butter.

Mr. G. HALL: I thought it also depended upon the patriotism of the people who bought it.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman asked me also about a subject upon which he is better informed—coal. He drew attention to the fact that there has been a very big drop in the export to the five or six chief consuming countries, and he asked whether that was not due to the Government's tariff policy. I can assure him it has nothing whatever to do with Ottawa, and it is Ottawa we are dealing with to-day. In the second place, so far as our import duties are concerned, I believe they have had no effect upon our export of coal. He further asks me whether the Importing countries have not complained and made that a reason for not importing our coal.
I have seen all the communications from these countries on the subject, and there is not one of them which has mentioned that they object to our duties as a reason for their restrictions on coal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) did me the honour of paying some attention to my past views and my present ones. He was extremely complimentary about my views in the past and had little to say about my views in the present. What obsessed him, and others inside and outside the House, is that under the arrangements we made with the Dominions we are getting too little and we are giving too much. If that is the view which is taken by them of ordinary mercantile transactions, I can only say that the man who is constantly obsessed with the idea that the man from whom he buys is getting too much and that those to whom he sells have not paid enough will find himself not only in the bankruptcy court but in the lunatic asylum. It is absolutely impossible to carry on transactions on that basis. During the whole of the time we were out in Canada we were, of course, surveying the ground and, if you like, we were bargaining. I do not know the difference between "bargaining" and "hard bargaining." I suppose it is largely a matter of nationality. We wanted to get as much as we could for the merchants and manufacturers of our own country. We wanted to do that with as little cost to our country as we could manage. There was no harm in that. Supposing that my hon. Friends had gone to Canada and had tried to drive a bargain with the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders, would they have been performing a national duty? They would have been guilty of dereliction of duty if they had not.
It was our duty to have open to us the markets which are under the command of the Dominions, and it was our duty in doing that to consider all the trades which depend on them for their work, employment and profit. We went through them one after another. It seems to me to be generally supposed that we did the whole of that in the course of the 4½ weeks at Ottawa. We began this work of dealing with our tariff Schedules early in 1932. We, and our experts, were at work on these Schedules for months before we sailed for Canada. We provided the Dominion Governments,
through their High Commissioners here, and our Trade Commissioners in the Dominions with copies of the Schedules showing what would be of benefit to us, if they could grant it. That went on for many months. While we were out there, it is true, the members of the delegation worked very hard, and none worked harder than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Dominions—and the latter, I need hardly say, added a good deal of colour to our meetings. But we had to spend the bulk of our time dealing with hard business and commercial matters. As I go through these Schedules now, I wonder how on earth we did it in such a short time. I know that over here some of the critics suggest that we behaved with a great deal of folly, and that we gave away far more than was reasonable.
Some of the verdicts I heard this afternoon appear to me to be out of touch with Imperial interests, and Canadian feeling, and I say now that when I hear my friend, Mr. Mackenzie King quoted in this House I want to know whether he is quoted with authority. We never interfered with Canadian politics out there, and I do not think any Canadian statesman would want to take part in our controversies here. I do not wish to fall back on the words of Mr. Mackenzie King and his colleagues, or upon Mr. Bennett and his Cabinet. I can give information as to public opinion which comes through the Canadian Press. I take one example from a Canadian newspaper, a newspaper of very high repute sometimes called the "Manchester Guardian of Canada"—I mean the "Manitoba Free Press" which calls itself Independent Liberal, and it is quite entitled to do so. I would like, however, to point out that "Liberal" in Canada is not exactly the same thing as here. It criticises the inadequacy of the reductions in the Canadian schedule, but hails them as a "definite step in the right direction." It adds that the general effect of charges on 230 items is to lighten the tariff burden and must be heartily accepted by sensible Canadians as a starting point for further reductions. It says:
The crumbling of the tariff wall in Canada has begun.
Apparently those of us who have had Free Trade antecedents have not been without influence on the walls of Jericho.
If the House does not regard it as too wearisome I would like to go through some of our staple industries and see where they stand. I take first the case of Canada. In no less than 83 items we are to receive increased preferences. It may be said the increased preference is, to some extent, due to the fact that the duties on articles from foreign countries will be raised. It may be that that is the Canadian way of doing it, but let us not under-estimate the value to ourselves. I am looking at it from the point of view of our own business here. What I want to know is what advantage we are going to get. We are going to have increased preference. There will be actually reduced duties on no fewer than 132 items, and no fewer than 72 items will appear for the first time on the Free List. I claim that that is going in the right direction.
In the case of New Zealand, before the Ottawa Conference, about 50 per cent. of our trade with New Zealand was on the Free List. As a result of the agreement with New Zealand there is to be an immediate reduction of duties on the remaining 50 per cent. In the case of India we receive the benefit of Preference for the first time. There have been differential duties, but never before has the principle of Preference been admitted by the representatives of India. The Secretary of State for the Colonies yesterday afternoon drew attention to the effect which these Indian proposals are likely to have on a number of our staple trades. I hope that the ratification of the Indian Agreement will go through without any hitch. If it does, it means an enormous increase in the activities of our houses importing into India and in the manufacturing centres of the United Kingdom.
Yesterday the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) made a very lively speech on the subject of the woollen industry. I need hardly say I have read every word of it with the diligence that comes of being an old West Riding Member. The hon. Member was a little scornful about the changes which this Agreement had made in the woollen industry. I have taken the trouble to find out from one of my friends what has been the effect on his firm. I
cannot answer naturally for the hon. Gentleman's firm. My friend writes to me:
Immediately after the publication of the Ottawa Agreement our firm received a cablegram ordering light wool dress cloth, which under the Agreement, being under four ounces per square yard is free. Not only did we receive this immediate order, but from a Canadian representative, now in Bradford, we have received a very substantial order for sample pieces within the next few days. All goes to point to our receiving from British importers and store holders in Canada as a direct result of the Conference—orders for light dress goods of four ounces and under, as they can now buy this from us profitably. They hope to place substantial business here in Yorkshire.
In face of that, I ask the House not to accept the survey of the hon. Member as being complete.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if that particular cloth was ever made in any quantity in Canada, and also the name of the firm? I want to ask him whether these cloths have ever been in competition with what has been manufactured here?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Of course, I cannot give the name of the firm. It would completely shut the door to my getting confidential information. With regard to the manufacture of the cloth, I do not care whether it was made in Canada or not. I know that for the first time it is going to be made in Yorkshire.
Now I come to another matter which is very important, and has caused us a great deal of anxiety. I would like to tell the House quite frankly that there has been no subject which has caused us more trouble than copper. It is just as well that the House should know how difficult it is to deal with some of these subjects. The whole copper trade of the world is surrounded with checks, cartel arrangements and price arrangements. There is a kind of perpetual warfare going on in the region of copper, and we deem it to be as well for Dominion countries and ourselves to be able to obtain all that is required in the way of copper from within the Empire. We did not wish to be at the mercy of those who can open the door to supplies or cut them off just as suits their own interests. We were prepared to take a very drastic line
with copper, and we have recommended in this Bill that there should be a duty of 2d. a lb. upon raw copper—that duty is almost prohibitive—but we only did it because we knew that within the boundaries of the Empire itself there is any amount of copper, sufficient to satisfy all our needs.
It always happens, when you change over from one trade or one market to another, that there is a certain time-during the change over when there may be the very gravest inconvenience. It might go even further than that. We only agreed to this duty on copper on the understanding that consumers like producers were satisfied. Common agreement on a subject like copper may sound very simple to those who do not know how many varieties of copper there are. It is a very complicated subject. We discovered that it was almost impossible for the Empire to supply at once, according to our immediate needs, fire-refined copper, on which a great many of our manufacturing concerns are dependent. The case with regard to electrolytic copper is rather different. Electrolytic copper can be supplied in ample amounts for all the requirements of the United Kingdom granted a little time.
We have to tide over a very difficult time. It is not a subject with which I believe Ministers as a whole can deal. We have not the time nor the technical knowledge. It is very much better that the trade should manage it themselves, and we have, as the result of consultations which I initiated a short time ago, reached complete agreement between consumers and producers. We have agreed to set up a joint committee whose first duty will he to report to the Government, not later than 5th November, as to the availability of supplies of Empire electrolytic copper. In the light of this report the Government will decide when the duty on this variety of copper can be imposed. The signatories to the agreement ask the Government to suspend the operation of the duty upon copper other than electrolytic copper for the present, but it is understood that, with a view to safeguarding the United Kingdom market for Empire producers, the duty will be imposed on these forms of copper as soon as Empire producers can supply adequate quantities and quality. The House is well aware that
we have only agreed to these arrangements provided our manufacturers can obtain their copper at the world price. Provision is made in the common agreement with regard to what is meant by world price and first sale. It is only right that I should say that, in accordance with the express terms of the Ottawa Agreements, if the circumstances should arise which some perhaps may fear—I do not—we should have no hesitation in applying promptly the remedy that the Bill provides. I mention copper because it touches so many of our engineering and manufacturing trades, and it is only right that they should know at the earliest moment that their interests are adequately safeguarded.
If I were to go through every one of our big staple industries in full detail, I fear I should weary the House, but I can give a bird's eye view of the things that matter most for the employment of our people. I am leaving coal out of account, for the present, because the Ottawa Agreements do not really touch coal. That is a different problem which should be dealt with in a different way. I take first of all the wool textile trade. The Canadian tax on wool textiles is very high. It has been reduced, but it has not been reduced, in my opinion, far enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am here to get it reduced to a lower figure. My hon. Friends have forfeited their right to take part in this transaction. Even if the reductions which we expect may not be forthcoming in full, we have made arrangements whereby the interests of this industry can be dealt with in a way in which they have never been dealt with in the past. The setting up of the Tariff Board has been delayed in Canada, and, when we went there, we found that there was no Tariff Board, although the Statute is still in force which would have provided for its appointment. The Canadian Government have undertaken to make the appointments of impartial men with judicial minds. When I hear it said in the House or outside that you cannot trust the Canadian Tariff Board because it will be composed entirely of Canadians, I say that is a very grave aspersion upon the Canadian Government.
We have no reason to doubt the purity of the Canadian Bench, and I believe we shall have no reason to doubt the purity
of action of the Canadian Tariff Board. At all events, I am not going to condemn them until I have some grounds on which to condemn them. I trust them and I believe in the good faith of the Canadian Government, and we shall for the first time have the right, at the request of this Government, to have heard before this Tariff Board the applications of our own traders. Look at sections 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Canadian Agreement and you will see that our manufacturers cases can be brought before the Canadian board, and the Canadian Government undertake that they shall be heard on the application of the United Kingdom Government. They are there to obtain information and express judgment of the difference in costs and wages between this country and Canada. It is not the first occasion on which an attempt has been made to equalise grave differences in wage costs. It is, I believe, a cardinal point in the policies of hon. Members opposite. That is one of the things that may be taken into account by the Tariff Board. They will look into the comparative cost of overhead charges, and they will have to be cognisant of the expense of social services. When they have taken all these into account, they will then be under the obligation, as laid down in this Agreement, to give to the Scotsman or the Welshman or the Englishman competing in their markets a fair chance of competing on equal lines with their Canadian competitors. I do not know that any better arrangement has ever been devised between countries that are wedded to a tariff system as Canada is. I cannot say that everything that the Canadians said during the whole time we were there was welcome to my ears, but this offer, not initiated, it may be, entirely in their Government circle but affected by them, was a. perfectly fair offer and we were obtaining a real advantage out of accepting it.
In Australia they already have an independent Tariff Board It expresses its views, no matter what may be the complexion of the Government of the day. An undertaking was given by the present Australian Prime Minister in the course of his election. Prime Ministers very often commit themselves in the course of elections on fiscal subjects, and they in-
variably carry out their commitments. In Australia they were committed by the commitment given by the Prime Minister. He undertook that there should be no reduction of their tariff except on the recommendation of their Tariff Board. Not until that Tariff Board had examined the case and put forward their views could there be a reduction, but they undertook to initiate the movement towards a reduction, and they have already given signs of their good faith in getting rid of some of the extraneous taxation, which is just as great an obstacle to trade within the Empire as ordinary tariff walls.
We shall find that woollen goods, cotton goods, machinery and metal goods of various kinds will all come within the activities of these Tariff Boards. I believe that, even if a reduction of these duties is not now material, it will be the beginning of better things and that the Tariff Boards will initiate a downward movement which will lead to a much greater activity of trade within the British Empire itself. In the case of hosiery, a subject of great difficulty because of its immense variety, there was a good deal of discussion. We thought we had made some progress there. The duties are complicated—partly ad valorem and partly specific. The tendency has again been downwards. I do not know what good is going to come out of the lower hosiery duties—no one can prophesy—but I hope that downward tendency will undoubtedly be all to the good.
When one turns to iron and steel, I can only say that there we have actually, in black and white, made arrangements, or endorsed arrangements—it does not much matter which because our influence was all in that direction—which will give to United Kingdom producers a much better market than they have had for many long years in Canada. The trade know that. I cannot say they are satisfied—trades never are—but they know perfectly well that they are in a much better position now than they were 12 months ago.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: What about India?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member spoke about India yesterday. I should be very glad to have a talk with him about it, because he is under a misapprehension
with regard to galvanised sheets. I do not want to interpolate that in the course of what I fear must be a very short speech. Canada gives entry free of customs duty to motor cars—it does not include omnibuses—cycles and side cars. The previous preferential duties were 12½ and 15 per cent. They are wiped out. I do not know whether that will help the motor car industry or not. It depends on the industry. But we are giving them a chance. In Australia it was not possible to obtain that relief for the industry, but it was arranged that the discussions should continue after the Conference, and they are continuing. In the case of New Zealand, the motor car industry will benefit by the removal of the surtax, and in India it will also have some benefit. I do not mention machinery and a number of categories as time is passing on. I would like to direct the attention of the House to another aspect of these proposals. I am not going to discuss the constitutional question, because I think the last word on that subject was said by the Foreign Secretary. There is nothing more to be said on it. I freely admit that every commercial treaty which you enter into limits your action in one way or another. So, indeed, does every disarmament treaty limit your action, but it may not be any the worse for that. There never has been a commercial treaty which did not to some extent limit the action of the Sovereign State.
There has been some discussion in the House during the last few days on the subject of the treaties of Mr. Cobden. I should have thought that Mr. Cobden was above suspicion, but I looked up to see what John Morley had to say on the subject. If the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will allow me to say so, I prefer the view of John Morley on fiscal questions to the view of Oliver Cromwell, not forgetting the fact that Oliver Cromwell was the great protector.
One Member"—
said John Morley while this was under discussion
still happily alive and vocal,"—
—it sounds exactly like our own time—
asked if it had come to this, that the free Parliament of England sat to register the decrees of the despot of France.
That is something like an echo of what we have heard in the last few days. When I went a little further I found that John Morley expressed himself very frankly and very curtly on the subject of those who were doctrinaires.
It is absurd"—
he said,
to quarrel with the treaties because they do not sound in tune with the verbal jingle of an abstract dogma.
What so many hon. Gentlemen in the House have been anxious about is, that, having entered into these Agreements, we should have crippled ourselves in making commercial agreements with foreign countries. I should like to reassure the House that not only are we not crippled, but that we are actually carrying on the negotiations. It is no use saying negotiations cannot be entered upon or conducted. They are being entered upon and are being conducted. It may be that there are only five nations at present with whom we have expressed readiness to deal. We are open to deal with all the world, but we must take them in order. We cannot be expected to deal with 42 commercial treaties all at once.
The House is almost entitled to ask what steps we have taken and how we have proceeded. I will tell the House. First of all, we go through our various trades, and we decide upon those which are regarded as of substantial importance. We examine tariff movements upwards or downwards in respect of those trades. We have drawn up schedules of the statistical and tariff position. Each tariff, I think, has been examined, and in the case of some tariffs we have had to examine thousands of items. The relative importance of the suggested concessions have all had to be assessed. Schedules of these have been sent to the great trade organisations to ascertain their views and to obtain technical suggestions from them. The Schedules have also been before all the Departments concerned. We ultimately produce memoranda showing the desiderata for each country which we wish to obtain from them. We have been able to cover the whole field of manufactures. One of the things whit I kept my eye upon all the time I was out in Canada—the House will forgive me saying it—was the keeping of the field of manufactures clear so that
we could carry on negotiations on our return to Europe. We have done so. Were it not for that no doubt our difficulties would have been very great. I see no reason in the world why we should not succeed in dealing with each of these in order, country by country, and trade by trade.
I should like, in conclusion, to sum up what I have to say with regard to Great Britain and her present position in the world markets. I will sum up very quickly in about seven short points. In my view, Great Britain, as a market, as a centre of finance and as a world force, is, and must remain, the most important and vital part of the Empire. Consequently, the policy of the United Kingdom, as a creditor country, with investments both inside and outside the Empire, is to cultivate commercial and financial freedom and activity, but this freedom and activity are limited by the policy of the rest of the world and of the Dominions. These limits can and ought to be the subject of negotiations. They can most usefully begin with the Empire countries, and afterwards we can negotiate with important foreign countries. The extension of trade within the Empire involves the readjustment of existing tariffs, and, remembering our need for freedom and activity, these adjustments ought, in my opinion, to be on a low level.
The export trade of the United Kingdom is dependent on a restoration of the purchasing power of the wide areas of the world devoted to the production of primary commodities. For instance, if Australia and New Zealand cannot sell their meat, wheat and wool profitably; if India cannot sell her jute and teas, and the West Indies cannot sell their sugar except at a loss, they in turn cannot buy our cotton and woollen goods, and we, in our turn, must inevitably restrict our purchases of raw cotton, and wool. If we are put on a fair competitive basis we can hold our own against the competition of the world. The preferences given in the Dominions aim at stimulating our competitive power. Preferences given in this country aim at the extension of the purchasing power of the Dominions. Preferences, let me say frankly, which are not effective because the tariff is prohibitive are not genuine preference. Each preference should be such as to give a fighting chance for any
enterprising efficient producer within the Empire.
What I personally welcomed at Ottawa was every step towards an expansion of world as well as of Empire trade. I was glad to have had any part or lot with my hon. and right hon. Friends in obtaining a fighting chance for our manufacturers and merchants in the Dominions, and for the Dominion men here. What I would have liked, if I could have had my own way, would have been to take every step towards greater commercial activity, providing the fullest possible employment of our land, works, mills, machinery, ships and railways. It must be recognised, however, that once and for all the Dominions have complete

freedom both fiscally and politically. They may in the future use their political freedom and do things which may be disagreeable to the Mother Country, and they may have in the past used their fiscal freedom in a way that was not altogether acceptable to us. But their good will is a priceless possession. What must be done and what will be done is to build on this foundation the future prosperity of the whole Empire. In that cause we ask for the support of this Sovereign Assembly.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 423; Noes, 77.

Division No. 328.]
AYES.
[7.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Denville, Alfred


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds. W.)
Butler, Richard Austen
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dickie, John P.


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Donner, P. W.


Alexander, Sir William
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Doran, Edward


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Drewe, Cedric


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Duckworth, George A. V.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Carver, Major William H.
Duggan, Hubert John


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cassels, James Dale
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Castlereagh, Viscount
Dunglass, Lord


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Eady, George H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Eastwood, John Francis


Atkinson, Cyril
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Elmley, Viscount


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Christie, James Archibald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks,. Aylesbury)
Clarry, Reginald George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portam'th, C.)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Everard, W. Lindsay


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fermoy, Lord


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Conant, R. J. E.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cooke, Douglas
Fox, Sir Gifford


Borodale, Viscount
Cooper, A. Duff
Fraser, Captain Ian


Boulton, W. W.
Copeland, Ida
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ganzoni, Sir John


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cranborne, Viscount
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Craven-Ellis, William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bracken, Brendan
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Crooke, J. Smedley
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Cross, R. H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Granville, Edgar


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grattan- Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Graves, Marjorie


Buchan, John
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Greases-Lord, Sir Walter


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Burghley, Lord
Davison, Sir William Henry
Grimston, R. V.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dawson, Sir Philip
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Burnett, John George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McLean, Major Alan
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Gunston, Captain D. W.
McLean, Dr, W. H. (Tradeston)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Maitland, Adam
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Hanley, Dennis A.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Salmon, Major Isidore


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, Thomas B.
Salt, Edward W.


Harbord, Arthur
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Hartland, George A.
Meller, Richard James
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Millar, Sir James Duncan
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Headlam, Lieut.-Cot. Cuthbert M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scone, Lord


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Milne, Charles
Selley, Harry R.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Etrtrd & Chisw'k)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Mensail, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Here-Belisha, Leslie
Moreing, Adrian C.
Slater, John


Hornby, Frank
Morgan, Robert H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Horshrugh, Florence
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Howard, Tom Forrest
Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Munro, Patrick
Smithers, Waldron


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Somerset, Thomas


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nall, Sir Joseph
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Hurd, Sir Percy
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Soper, Richard


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nicholson, Rt. H n. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jamieson, Douglas
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Jesson, major Thomas E.
North, Captain Edward T.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nunn, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
O'Connor, Terence James
Storey, Samuel


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Strauss, Edward A.


Ker, J. Campbell
Ormiston, Thomas
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Patrick, Colin M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Kimball, Lawrence
Pearson, William G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Penny, Sir George
Summersby, Charles H.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sutcliffe, Harold


Knehworth, Viscount
Perkins, Waiter R. D.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Knight, Holford
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Templeton, William P.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Petherick, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'prn, Blist'n)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Thompson, Luke


Law, Sir Alfred
Pike, Cecil F.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Potter, John
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Leckie, J. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lees-Jones, John
Power, Sir John Cecil
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Leigh. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Train, John


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pybus, Percy John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ramsden, E.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Rankin, Robert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Lockwood. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ray, Sir William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Wells, Sydney Richard


Lymington, Viscount
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Weymouth, Viscount


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Remer, John R.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Robinson, John Roland
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rosbotham, S. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wise, Alfred R.


McKie, John Hamilton
Ruggies-arise, Colonel E. A.
Withers, Sir John James




Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Worthington, Dr. John V.
TELLERS FOR ME AYES.—


Womersley, Walter James
Wragg, Herbert
Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.


Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W. r., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Price, Gabriel


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hicks, Ernest George
Rea, Walter Russell


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hopkinson, Austin
Rothschild, James A. de


Cape, Thomas
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Curry. A. C.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mabane, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKeag, William
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglessa)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.  —


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro' W.)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Main Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): I beg to move,
That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be further suspended till the next Session of Parliament.
This Motion regarding the London Passenger Transport Bill stands in the name of the Prime Minister. What is it that the Motion is asking the House to sanction? We are asking that this Parliament shall have an opportunity—and for the first time—to discuss a Bill which has been sent down from a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. That is all we are asking for tonight; nothing more than that. What would result if the House should not pass this Motion to-night? It would at one moment sacrifice the work of 35 days in Committee—35 very hard days, as the 1,300 pages of closely printed evidence would indicate. Further than that, it would sacrifice, possibly in a way in which it could never be recovered, the great measure of agreement which has already been achieved with the undertakers in the areas concerned. Lastly,
and this point is of real importance in these days of financial stringency, £40,000 of public money would be lost. In addition, it would mean that the years of hard work of negotiation with a view to meeting outstanding objections and to modifying the Bill in certain particulars since it left the Joint Committee, would also be wasted.
If the Bill is carried over by the House, it may, on the passing of a Resolution next Session, be brought before a Committee of the whole House and discussed Clause by Clause. The changes which we shall propose to make may also be carefully examined. They are the result of a sincere attempt to understand and meet certain objections made to the Bill in its original form both inside and outside the House. The principal modifications are set out in the White Paper which I circulated after the House rose for the Summer Recess. I believe that the Bill with these modifications incorporated in it is a businesslike solution of what has never been anything but a purely business problem. I am well aware of the infinite complication which surrounds the subject, for, in addition to technical difficulties, there has been, unfortunately, in the past superimposed upon them not a little political difficulty.
I should like to assure the House that from the moment I entered the Ministry
of Transport I attacked this problem from only one point of view. I felt, and I am sure the House will agree with me, that the co-ordination of passenger traffic in the London area, the provision of adequate travelling facilities for the greatest urban population in the world, was not a political, but an essentially economic and non-political, task. I have read and re-read the history of the previous attempts to solve the problem, and I say without hesitation that whenever attempts have been made to give a political colour to any phase or solution, it has inevitably resulted in the proposal being lost and the problem remaining unsolved. Every day that has passed since the Bill was introduced some new complications have arisen and some new difficulty or interest has come into the picture, making an already difficult task well-nigh impossible.
8.0 p.m.
I have often been asked why I do not go back to the Co-ordination Bills which were before Parliament in 1929. I should like to explain that point. I confess that in the early days of my term of office, I examined this possibility with very great care, but I have been forced to the conclusion that it was not feasible on many grounds which I felt to be essentials. I will mention one or two of them. I hope the House will not misunderstand me. I am not decrying the plans which have been brought forward from time to time for the co-ordination of passenger traffic in London. Two Private Bills, one promoted by the London County Council and the other by the Underground group were in my opinion clever and sincere attempts to achieve a compromise, for a compromise was necessary, because it seemed then impossible to obtain unified ownership of the enterprises concerned. If one reads through the relevant Debates and proceedings in Committee one finds over and over again expressions of regret by experts, famous in the realms of transport and local government, that the plans they had put forward were merely the best that could be devised, on the assumption that unified and common ownership was not then feasible. The London Passenger Transport Bill grasps that nettle and frames a scheme without any of the disadvantages of divided ownership of the enterprises, which must in my opinion be knit together in one
harmonious whole if maximum efficiency is to be obtained. There are certain essentials which in my view must be incorporated in any plan designed to solve this great problem. I do not think that these essentials could at that time be included in the Co-ordinating Bills. Firstly, the scope and area covered by the Co-ordinating Bills was much too small, and since the idea was first conceived the problem has grown to such an extent as to make a reversion to the smaller scheme absolutely impossible. Again, the Bills did nothing in themselves, they merely empowered the parties to make agreements with one another. I do not think that I am over-stating the case if I say that if we were to consult the experts and the bodies who really understand this serious problem few of them would to-day claim that the Co-ordinating Bills present an adequate solution. Secondly, it is incumbent on Parliament to see that any scheme it sanctions is of a type which will operate efficiently not only to-day but in the future, functioning by virtue of its structure both technical and financial without any basic change as conditions change.
In my opinion, the first foundation stone of such a structure is a unified and common ownership of all the enterprises operating in the London area and the Co-ordinating Bills in my opinion suffered from an absence of this basic provision. But Parliament is fortunate in having among its hon. Members men of all shades of political belief who have studied this problem in all its varying aspects. Some of them objected to certain provisions of the Bill as it left the Joint Committee and wished modifications to be made. I have tried to inquire into every one of the objections of which I could hear, and I have tried in the case of those who object to the Bill as it left the Joint Committee to get my mind on to the same plane as theirs to see see whether I could understand their point of view and, if possible, meet it. As a result I felt that some of these objections were well founded and where it is possible, without destroying the efficiency of the Bill, I shall suggest modifications to meet these reasonable objections. These objections fell into two main classes. First, those concerning the powers of the Minister. That was a point which I felt was causing grave con-
cern in many parts of the House and in many parts of the area affected.
In the second place, there were those concerning the provisions for the compulsory acquisition of undertakings in the event of failure to arrive at an agreement. Hon. Members who have read the White Paper which I published after the Summer Recess will see the nature of the modifications which I propose to make. First let me deal with the objection that the Bill in its original form gave the Minister too much control over the Board. We have met that objection. We now propose to take these powers from the Minister and place them in the hands of a body to be set up and known as the appointing trustees, to whom will be entrusted, instead of to the Minister, the important duty of selecting the board. There are other powers, particularly those concerning the facilities to which the travelling public are entitled. We have found it possible to arrange that these shall be transferred from the Minister to the Railway Rates Tribunal, as specially constituted for the purposes of the Bill. I suggest that this gives to local authorities and others much more power in representing the interests of the great travelling public of London than they have ever possessed before.
Then there was the second objection—the compulsory acquisition of undertakings. I am bound to say that I understood this particular objection at once. I feel a good deal of sympathy with it. When the Bill left the Joint Committee no agreement had been reached with the Metropolitan Company and the Bill provided for the compulsory acquisition of the company's undertaking by the Board on terms to be settled by an arbitration tribunal. There are, of course, numerous precedents for the compulsory acquisition of undertakings in this manner, but what was unusual, though not altogether unprecedented, was the provision that the company should be paid for the transfer of their property by the issue of stock without the option of taking cash. It was this particular proposal which roused so much opposition, but as the result of the agreement which, subject to the approval of this House, has been concluded with the Metropolitan Railway Company, with the co-operation of the main line railways, the position now is
that none of the parties affected by the Bill will be deprived of their property without compensation in cash except such as agree to take, or express a preference for, stock. I believe that this does meet an objection which was deeply felt in many parts of the House, and I am glad to think that, subject to the approval of the House, we have been able to remove a cause for uneasiness which so many hon. Members have entertained.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: It has been agreed to with the holders of the Metropolitan Railway Stock?

Mr. PYBUS: That is so. That agreement is embodied in the White Paper which I issued.

Sir R. HORNE: Then it is not for other people to object if they are satisfied.

Mr. PYBUS: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the observation. I do not wish to introduce a personal note into this matter but I think the House is aware that I am not entirely unfamiliar with the operation of great enterprises and modern methods of rationalisation. I have studied this problem closely for 15 months and my opinion, for what it is worth, is that this Bill, based on the experience of the last 15 years and the research undertaken by Royal Commissions, committees and independent persons, proves that there is one scientifically conceived and basic structure upon which London passenger transport traffic can be rendered cheap, efficient and financially sound. Whatever name is given to the Act of Parliament which authorises such a scheme the principles now included in the Bill before the House must be embodied. In the last few days I have been approached by many hon. Members who have been given the impression that once this Motion is passed there will be no opportunity in the next Session of Parliament for them to put down and propose Amendments, and that they must accept the Bill just as it stands. How this impression has got abroad I cannot imagine, but, of course, it is not the case. The Government will propose their own Amendments, and it will be open to hon. Members to put down their Amendments in the ordinary way. I am glad of this opportunity to clear up this point.

Mr. HANNON: At what stage of the Bill will they be taken next Session?

Mr. PYBUS: The Bill will be taken in the new Session on a Motion and will come before a Committee of the Whole House. In conclusion, cannot believe that this House will lightly follow those who are anxious to prevent the present House of Commons judging on its merits, and as modified by Government Amendments and Amendments put on the Order Paper by other Members of the House, a Bill on which so great a measure of agreement has been reached and on which so much public money has been expended. Before I came into the Chamber this evening I read an article in one of the evening papers, and I should like to call the attention of hon. Members to the last sentence of this article as it is very important for those who desire to have an opportunity of examining the Bill rather than reject it without any such opportunity. The article says:
Meanwhile the problem remains increasing in size and urgency every day. Some solution we must have, and quickly. if it is not to overwhelm us. To throw the Bill out does not solve the problem.

Sir KENYON VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to proceed with the consideration of a highly controversial Measure introduced seventeen months ago by an administration which no longer enjoys the confidence of the country or of this House, and resolves that, in view of the many urgent problems of national importance requiring the attention of this House, His Majesty's Government should withdraw a Bill for which it received no mandate from the electorate, and as to which no sufficient information has been furnished and no satisfactory Amendment submitted to this House since the Committee stage, and further declares that the precedent which it is sought to establish of carrying over a Public Bill for a second time to a subsequent Session is contrary to the best interests of Parliament.
That is a statement of my own belief and a belief which is widely shared by many hon. Members of this House. The Amendment itself has, I must confess. been criticised on certain grounds. It has been urged that it is too long. It has been urged also that it is not worded in the most happily turned phrases to secure the widest measure of support. I
plead guilty to natural shortcomings and to the possible fault of the wording, but at least the Amendment states what I believe to be facts and represents a firm measure of conviction.
The House has listened with much interest to the important statement made by the Minister of Transport. I have made a few notes of what he said, and on some of his points I hope to have an opportunity of addressing the House. One thing impressed me in what he said. He said that he deprecated the effect of political interference on Measures of this kind. In the course of my remarks I may have an opportunity of underlining the importance which he attaches to that view. The Minister also stressed the importance of approaching this question from a businesslike point of view. That is one of the criticisms of his attitude which in time I shall develop. It is not solely a question of a businesslike attitude, but also a question of due regard for all the interests concerned, and not only of those who happen to have disposed of their property. The Minister also made some reference to the grasping of nettles. I think there are far too many nettles both in the path which the Government propose to pursue, and in the consequences to many of those who may he led to pursue that path with them.
However, before I deal with the arguments which I shall put before the House I would remind it and those hon. Members who are not so familiar as the Minister of Transport with the past history of this controversy, of a few points of recent occurrence. This problem in its most modern form goes back not quite so far as the Minister suggested, but really to 1924. In that year events occurred which rendered necessary the introduction of the Bill of that year. As a result of that Bill there was set up the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, which has done some admirable work. That body framed the instrument which is well known under the name of the Blue Book. They made certain recommendations, and those recommendations were the basis of the Bills of 1929 and 1930. The fate of those Bills has been already touched upon by the Minister. While be may perhaps deprecate my using such language, they were in point of fact butchered to make a Socialist holiday. They had practically
received the approval and legislative sanction of this House, but before they actually had the effect of law a General Election supervened, and a different control existed at the Ministry of Transport.
After some time for consideration the late Minister of Transport, the right hon. Herbert Morrison, introduced his Bill in 1931. It will be remembered that the Second Reading of that Bill was stoutly opposed by the party to which I belong. As the Minister of Transport at that time was proud to characterise it, it was the greatest measure of Socialisation in transport ever laid before the country. The challenge was accepted by the Conservative party, and the Bill was rejected with a Resolution in terms suitable to its character and its origin. Criticisms levelled against the Bill introduced then were as follows:
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides for the nationalisation of London passenger transport, deprives local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings, takes the property of private owners out of their control and gives them no option of sale, invests the Minister of Transport with bureaucratic powers, and constitutes him, and not a judicial tribunal, a court of appeal in such important matters as the provision or withdrawal of traffic services and facilities.
Some of those objections, but a comparatively small proportion of them, have been met by the concessions which the Minister of Transport has made and which are embodied in the White Paper. After the Second Reading of the Bill it went to the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. There, as the Minister has said, we had a long and patient hearing. I would remind the House that the Preamble was passed only by five votes to four. That is sufficient indication of the highly controversial character of the Bill—a characteristic which I have ventured to mention in my Amendment. In the course of the hearing before the Joint Committee it is quite true that many interests which started in opposition found their opposition dwindle. They found, shall we say, that the frozen atmosphere of their discontent was modified by the sunshine of concessions. The hot winds of their disapproval have been turned to genial zephyrs, so far as the Bill itself is concerned, but I think the hot winds of discontent have been ad-
dressed rather to those who venture to criticise its provisions. The winter of their discontent has indeed been made glorious by the sun of concessions. As I venture to state, those concessions, however favourable they may be to the interested parties, are favourable at the expense of passengers, or will be favourable at the expense of passengers in London.
So much for the history up to that time. Then other changes of a more important character still, took place—a change of Government. Before the General Election this House was asked to approve of the carrying over of the Bill not only from Session to Session, but from Parliament to Parliament, a novel and, I believe, almost unprecedented operation. That was much commented upon in the House of Lords, where a prolonged Debate on the subject took place. I should like to read to the House the comments of Noble Lords on that transaction, but I fear I should exhaust the patience of hon. Members if I did so.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The carrying over from Parliament to Parliament of such a Measure was, if I remember aright, carried in this House with unanimity.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I am very glad of the right hon. Gentleman's interjection. He leads me to deal somewhat earlier with a point which I should have made in due course. As far as I and many of those who object to this Bill in its present form and who objected to it then are concerned, we felt some reluctance in this House, in view of the national emergency, to embarrass the Government by dealing with controversial matters which might or might not require to be dealt with in a future Parliament, of which we might or might not be Members. Their Lordships however are in a different situation and they dealt with the subject faithfully, as will be found from the record of their transactions. They commented on the unprecedented nature of the proposal—unconstitutional, I believe—but, as I say, I do not deal further with that point lest I should exhaust the patience of the House.
8.30 p.m.
We are now again asked to proceed on these unusual lines. We are again asked
to sanction the carrying forward of this Measure, contrary to the usual practice of the House, on the ground that a substantial sum has been spent on conducting the investigations essential to a proper understanding of the nature of the proposals underlying the Bill. The long record of the minutes of the Joint Committee is a tribute to the great care with which the proposals were examined. It is no easy matter to delve into those minutes, running as they do to many pages, and to draw conclusions from them. At the same time some of us have had to spend a great deal of time endeavouring to do so. This justification—the expenditure of £40,000—important though it is, is really trivial compared with the importance of the whole subject. To ask Parliament to depart from constitutional precedent on grounds like that seems almost to be trifling with the importance of the case and the occasion. A sum of £40,000 is important, but, as those of us who were in the last Parliament will recall, the Minister of Transport when moving the Second Reading of the Bill said that so great was the problem and so vast the figures involved, that one farthing per passenger journey added unnecessarily on to the cost of the transport of the 4,000,000,000 passengers carried annually in the area concerned would amount to an annual sum, not of £40,000 nor £400,000, but £4,000,000. My submission to the House is that the operation of this Bill must involve the passengers in this area in large additional sums which I hesitate to put at £4,000,000 per annum—they may be less and on the other hand they may easily be more. The Minister of Transport said that he had endeavoured to look at this matter from a strictly business-like point of view. He has a record as an able administrator of businesses, but, after all, business concerns are not the only consideration before the House in regard to this Bill. We have to think of the passengers, and it is the interest of the passengers which I am endeavouring to present. I have alluded to that figure of £4,000,000 which rather sticks in my mind. There are also provisions in the Bill according to which it is obligatory on the operators to make the Bill pay. Any appeals against increase of fares or curtailment of facilities will have to be met by the assurance that nothing can be done because the Bill pro-
vides that the Transport Board must make the scheme pay its way. It was shown in the evidence given to the Joint Committee by supporters of the Bill that the cheapest fares were those of the independent omnibus services and that the London County Council tramways cheap fares kept down the fares on the omnibus services on the tramway routes. I do not think that that statement can be challenged. Sir Henry Maybury, another witness for the Bill, admitted that fares would have to be raised but said that the local authorities would see that fares were "not inordinately raised." Mr. Herbert Morrison, as I have said, reminded us of that figure of £4,000,000 per annum—a sufficient warning I think of the serious character of the problem and of the dangers which await the passenger if these proposals be carried into effect.
As far as the financial basis of the Bill is concerned, Sir William McLintock, on behalf of the promoters, put in a pro forma financial statement which he described as a "static statement" in which he assumed a continuance of conditions as they were then, in 1931, without change, except for some economies from centralisation. That financial statement showed a balance of £132,928 after estimated expenses had been covered and the additional interest had been paid on "C" stock. Sir Leslie Scott pointed out that 1 per cent. increase in expenditure would wipe out the surplus revenue. What happens if that surplus goes? I think I am correct again in quoting Mr. Herbert Morrison. In answer to the question: "If there be a loss who is to meet the loss?" he confessed to the Select Committee that:
any extra burden placed upon the Board has either got to be found out of extra fares charged to the public, or it reduces the security to the 'C' stock holders.
Since then what has happened? There has been a fall in receipts which I hesitate to put at too high a figure, but I think that £750,000 per annum would not overshoot the mark, and there has been an increase in the cost of one important item at least and that is petrol. What must be the consequences of that? The economic basis of the Bill since it passed from the Select Committee has been modified by those important factors, if by no others, and there are other changes besides. The accommodation reached with the Metropolitan Railway
must also have altered the financial basis of the Bill. I have perhaps stressed sufficiently what I apprehend as the danger to the passenger from increased fares and curtailed facilities. As I have pointed out, by all indications that I can see and all the implications that I can reach from the evidence, that is practically bound to happen, at least in the changed circumstances of to-day.
The hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport pointed out that the passenger has redress. That is true, in a sense. A local authority has the right of appeal against the curtailment of facilities or the increase of fares, an appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal. That, with all respect to the Minister of Transport, is a local authority and does not cover the point which I should like to make, namely, that I want protection for the passenger. He may succeed or he may not succeed in moving his local authority to take action, and when a Member of the Government conies to reply, will he perhaps concede this point, that any substantial body of opinion shall be entitled to claim the rights of appeal now accorded in the Bill to a local authority; and will he perhaps go further, as I would desire him to do, and, somewhat on the analogy of the old rights of appeal included in the Tramway Bills of many years ago, allow a body of 20 and upwards the right of appeal? Something of that kind is urgently necessary to protect the travelling public against the danger which lies before them, and I should like a better form of appeal and an easier tribunal to approach than the Railway Rates Tribunal. I think that would he an improvement, but perhaps I ought not to go too much into details of that sort.
Here I must join issue with the Minister of Transport altogether. With great respect, I do not agree that there is this urgent necessity for doing anything at all. That may sound, after the history of these transactions, rather a change of mind. Well, if that is so, I will confess it, but there is not the urgent need for legislation on this subject which is often represented, and. as I have said, I cannot agree that the Government have any mandate from the country for dealing with legislation of this kind in the way proposed. I will now give a few quotations from the
evidence of witnesses in support of the Bill. Sir Henry Maybury said that the London County Council tramways carry 722,000,000 passengers "at fares which are the lowest in the Kingdom "; they have "led the way in the provision of facilities for workmen" to meet the needs of the public by providing transport at low fares, "they have done extremely well." He said further, of the Metropolitan Railway, that it "is quite efficient and has served the public well." Messrs. Tillings, he said, are
very progressive and active business trans- port people; they were the first established omnibus company to adopt the motor omnibus, the first to introduce the double-deck omnibus, the first to run a long-distance omnibus service.
Of the City Omnibus Co. he said:
Your operating costs are low. Your people are extremely efficient.
These are tributes which, am sure everybody will agree, are well deserved. Then, no less a person than Mr. Herbert Morrison himself, speaking at Transport. House on the 17th April, 1931, described the London Traffic Combine, that is, Lord Ashfield's undertaking, as "a very fine organisation." That is saying the least of it. We would all agree with that, and we would all pay tribute to the splendid organisation of Lord Ashfield's undertaking. The whole management of the traffic of London under his charge excites the admiration of observers and visitors to London, and one is only too glad to echo what Mr. Herbert Morrison said with regard to it and to pay tribute to its excellent administration under the present régime.
Well, then, why do von want to alter it? There has been a good deal of opposition, both inside this House and outside, to this Bill. It is opposed by the London County Council in principle. It is quite true that they have had to accept terms for their undertaking, as I would submit, under duress. That Bill, remember, was compulsory, and in Mr. Herbert Morrison's own words, when he brought in that Bill, he had not "a single agreement with anybody." The agreements which have been concluded under that Bill have been concluded under the stress of compulsion. I do not think there can be a shadow of doubt about that.

Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member says that the principle of this Bill is opposed
by the London County Council. Is he aware that the London County Council has not passed any resolution in support of his Amendment or in opposition to the present Government Motion?

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: So far as that goes, I could, if the House would wish me to do so, read the resolutions of the London County Council, but as we have the hon. Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) here, who will speak after me, I trust the House will forgive me for not dealing with that question.

Dr. SALTER: I ask the hon. Member to deal with it specifically.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The hon. Member asks me whether I am aware that the London County Council has passed no resolution in support of my Amendment. I do not know whether they have or not—I dare say they have not had time—but I do know this, that when a petition was prepared and circulated in this House, a similar petition against this Bill was presented for signature by members of the London County Council, and 83 members of that council appended their names to it as an expression of their opinion. I apologise for the digression. I was going to say that I understand the county council of Middlesex have recently circularised Members of this House in support of the Bill. They are one of the great authorities who have seen fit to give it their approval, but they are in perhaps an exceptional position. If one may describe that transaction with great respect, I should say that they have successfully landed their white elephant of a tramway undertaking upon the reluctant backs of a protesting public. That argument does not weigh very much with me.
The Minister of Transport made an effort to reconcile objections to this Bill by citing analogies of other legislation which has been passed through this House. I think that this Bill is entirely unprecedented in this respect, and in connection with that I will quote Mr. Wilfred Greene, who, in addressing the Joint Select Committee on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, said:
I do not think there is any precedent for a transfer of public authorities' undertakings to a Board of this character …. A precedent must be created.
That shows that a precedent does not exist. I apologise for having taken the
time of the House for so long. I have not much more to say except to recapitulate the objections which I and many others continue to see to this Bill. The modifications which the Minister of Transport has made through the White Paper do not meet the grave objections which I see to the proposals. I contend that it is a Socialist scheme; that it imposes compulsory purchase without the option of payment in cash, except to a trifling minority of the undertakings which are taken over; that it does not give any representation on the board of management to the municipal authorities in the traffic area; that it gives no security that existing services and fares will be maintained, still less that better and cheaper services will be provided.
I submit that the financial basis of the Bill has been seriously changed by settlements which have been reached and by changed circumstances, and by other developments since the Committee stage, and that it requires reconsideration on a revised financial estimate. That investigation should be made by this House. I contend that the Board of Management is not effectively responsible to Parliament nor to the people in the London traffic area through the local authorities. Of course, the responsibility for pressing this Measure through rests upon the Government. On them must rest the responsibility for this fateful step. The grave misgivings felt by many Londoners are being ignored, and a most undesirable precedent is being pressed upon the House. The conditions have changed since the Select Committee. Will not the Government consent to send the Bill once more to a Select Committee, or, failing that, will they give the house the assurance that ample time shall be allotted to the Committee stage? That is, from my point of view, only a very unsatisfactory alternative, because it does not give the House the same opportunity for investigation which would be afforded by a further study by a Select Committee. I contend that the Bill was, is, and remains a compulsory Bill, and that it will form a precedent which will be the basis of future legislation. If it had come to the House as an agreed Bill on the lines of those which we supported in 1929 and 1930, of course that objection would not prevail. It was not agreed with anybody.
I want to make one personal explanation. I am not the advocate of any interest except what I believe to be the interest of Londoners and London passengers. I am not anti-railway or pro any other industry concerned. So far as the railways are concerned, I do not think that I oppose it with any more force than they did, but I am perhaps rather less easily satisfied than they have proved to be. But I am pro-public and, so far as consistency is concerned, I believe that I stand where my party stood some 17 months ago. Where is that party now? The power of the Government to force Measures of this kind through the House is undoubted and it has to be accepted. As Voltaire said:
God is usually on the side of the big battalions.
But with power comes responsibility, and the Government must face up to the responsibility of what they intend to do. They were supported by the country in conditions of exceptional emergency to deal with national affairs, and not with the nationalisation of London transport. Such is my case. I am conscious of being, if a David at all, a very small David facing a very large Goliath, but when I use that comparison I am reminded of a story told of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) who, when he was once twitted with being very small in stature, replied:
In my part of Wales they measure men from the chin upwards.
I have done my best to plead my cause, to discharge my self-appointed task. That is the care of those 4,000,000,000 passengers who move about the vast area covered by this Bill—nearly 2,000 square miles with a population of between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000. It is to them that Government consideration must be given. It is by them that the Government will be judged, and to them, I submit, the Government must be responsible.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so because the subject of London transport is one in which I have taken an interest for a great many years past, and with which I have certainly some measure of acquaintance. I base my opposition to this Bill on the same reason which was given when it was opposed by
the leaders of my party during the late Socialist Government in a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) in which these words occurred:
The framework of the Bill is fundamentally wrong.
I contend that there is not a single alteration which has been proposed by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport which in any way alters the framework on which this Bill is laid down. I cannot see how any modifications will be of any use at all unless the Bill is built up from the very foundations and an entirely new Measure is introduced. Let me remind the House what was said about this, and the objections raised by the leaders of my party when the Bill came up first. The first objection was to the compulsory purchase of private property. That objection is not removed because a great many of the owners of that private property, realising that Parliament can force a Bill of this nature through, saw that it was better to come to an agreement now rather than to fight on and to come to an agreement when the Bill had become an Act, and it would be much more difficult for them to get a satisfactory settlement.
The next objection was to the creation of a cast-iron monopoly. Is there anything more dangerous than putting the whole transport, not only of London but of an area within a radius of 45 miles from Charing Cross, into the hands of a monopoly such as it is proposed to create, which will own as well as control all passenger transport in the area? Another objection is that this monopoly will not be responsible to Parliament or to any local authority. It can practically do anything it pleases as long as it makes both ends meet, though that will be the greatest difficulty which will confront it. It appears obvious to me that neither the Underground Railway nor the Metropolitan Railway would have agreed to terms which were not wholly satisfactory to them from the financial point of view, and the interest which will have to be paid to them, either in cash or in shares, will have to be found by the new Transport Board.
The next objection is that the financial position was not really a strong one at the very commencement, but I will not say much on that point, because my hon.
and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment has already dealt with it at length. Questions as to how the agreements with the Metropolitan and the other railways would affect the net revenue which would be available to the new body from 1934 to 1941 have been asked in this House, but the Minister has never answered them. All he has said is that the information would be forthcoming. I do not know of any information, so far, which tells us what the financial position will be under the present proposals, having regard to the increased capital which will be required—the increase on the amount suggested originally—and the decreasing passenger receipts from which all methods of transport have suffered during the last two years.
9.0 p.m.
The next point that has been criticised is that the Board is to be appointed by the Minister of Transport. I confess that under present circumstances I should prefer to see that Board appointed by the Minister of Transport rather than by a committee very few of whom really know anything at all about transport. If he wants to make the committee more able and more representative I suggest that he should add the President of the Royal College of Surgeons and the President of the Royal College of Physicians. I ask my hon. Friend, whose business ability I well know—the great work he has carried out in the past is known, I think, to every body connected with business in this country—what he would think if the executive of one of our great business undertakings was appointed by a committee which knew nothing at all about the business which was being carried on? Would such a company have any chance of success if the executive were nominated in that way? I suggest that the same considerations must apply when it is a question of electing the most important executive that this country has ever known—for London is one of the chief places in the country. When in 1926 we passed the Electricity Act we did not give ownership to the Central Electricity Board. We gave them a control over methods. If this Bill contemplated simply a body which should be advisory, and should control the methods to be applied in operating transport in and around London, I should not have the same objections to it as I have now.
Who is going to settle the great and vital questions, from the economic point of view, of what services should be rendered by the Board and what services by the railways, and what the pooling scheme is going to be? Parliament will have nothing to say about it; it will have no control; that is to be settled by the Railway Rates Tribunal. What security have the vast population not only of Greater London, but of that greater district reaching nearly to the sea coast—it covers an area of 40 or 45 miles from Charing Cross—that fares will not be increased and services reduced? Then, as one who knows something about these things, I suggest that in considering the amounts to be paid to the outer railway undertakings, which will be settled by arbitration, the sums already paid to the Metropolitan and the Underground Railway Companies will be regarded as an indication of what is proper to award, and that in consequence those payments will be far in excess of the estimates made when the Bill was before the Committee. We know that the margin is already very small, or was very small at the time when the matter was considered by the Committee. What margin is left to-day; and, if a margin is left, how will it be possible for the Board to raise the very large amount of capital which it will have to raise if it is going to give the people of London and the larger area outside the services they require and to which they are entitled?
It is my view that this House has to look after the interests of the people of this country, and in this case it is in the interests of the teeming millions who every day have to be carried into and out of London by some form of transport. The only people who are really satisfied, and who proclaim from the housetops that they are amply satisfied, are the two railways whose purchase has been agreed upon, and the other railway companies who hope to reap a profit by dividing some of the profits now earned by other methods of transport. It is very interesting to read the speeches made by chairmen and directors and general managers of the various railway companies. They say that when this Bill becomes an Act it will be magnificent for the public, and they add, "And it will be a very fine job for us." I do not object; on the contrary, I hope the position of the British railways is going to
be materially improved; but I suggest that it should not be done at the cost of increased fares and reduced services for the population of London. It is the duty of Parliament to protect these teeming millions, who have not got very much voice in things. Although they can express their opinion in elections and to their members, when this Bill becomes an Act they will have no voice at all and nothing to say.
May I remind the House that we have had monopolies in the past, and that these monopolies have not always safeguarded the big interests of the passengers they served? I will not mention any particular railways, but many hon. Members know that there are certain railways whose services to the public, local services and branch line services, are far from satisfactory and can be very much improved. They are being improved to-day. Why? Because the motor omnibus has come in, and they have competition for the first time in their lives. I suggest that to-day—and I speak with some knowledge on the subject—there is no city with the traffic and the population that London possesses, and with the difficulties which exist in handling that traffic, which has a finer service than London. I do not know a city in Europe or in the United States, with similar conditions, which has a finer service than that which we enjoy to-day. To these circumstances, I suggest that this Bill is not as urgent as has been suggested. Obviously there are certain parties who would like to see it passed at once, but the travelling public has not made a protest, as it undoubtedly would have done if the dissatisfaction had been so great.
If this Bill becomes an Act, it will be a precedent. I can foresee, at no distant date, proposals being brought forward in this House to deal with a very great and serious problem, that is, not road versus rail but road and rail, from the point of view of the problem of serving the public and of serving our industries. With all our railways and with all our methods of transport, by land and by air, the suggestion will be made that the only way of handling them will be to form another colossal trust, to deal with the whole problem for England, Scotland and Wales. I can see no reason if this Bill
becomes an Act, why that proposal should not be made. The reasons would be quite as urgent, and perhaps more urgent than they are in London to-day, for dealing with the question of road and rail co-ordination. If that is done we may be faced with the suggestion, which has been constantly put forward by the hon. Members who are our opponents on the Socialist Benches, that we should deal with banks and insurance companies in the same way. Why should not the same reasons be alleged, by some people at any rate, as are alleged as the reasons why this Bill should be proceeded with?
I should like to say a word in reply to the suggestions made by the Minister of Transport, which are that his proposals deal with the objections; that the proposals are urgent and should be considered at once; that the proposals, which were practically through, and only missed becoming law because there was a change of Government, are sound in principle; that they practically carry out what we are anxious to obtain, a co-ordination of the various means of transport; that they were agreed measures. I do not think I am far wrong in believing that the measures were originally suggested by Lord Ashfield, who is one of the ablest men in the world of transport to-day. He was perfectly satisfied, and the county council were perfectly satisfied. There is no difficulty in enlarging the scope of the Measure, which was agreed to by everybody and there is no difficulty in including the railways, if the railways realise that a Bill of the kind is put forward, and that their co-operation is essential, and if the Bill is so worded that the railways understand that, if they do not agree voluntarily to co-operation on a proper basis, some other method might possibly be put into effect. I cannot see why that method would not he a success to carry out everything that is desired by the Minister of Transport and by all of us, avoiding all those pitfalls of which I think this Bill is full. You cannot build a house when the foundations are faulty. If you have a steel structure built, and you see that the whole framework is faulty, it is no good trying to put the panels in, because one day the whole edifice will collapse. Whatever slight alterations are suggested, do not alter the framework on which this Bill is founded. For these reasons, and many others which
I will not mentioned now, I beg to second the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan).

Sir HENRY JACKSON: Once again, in considering London's transport, this House has a great responsibility and a great opportunity to-night. You have to take this Bill in your hands. You may kill it or, as I hope, you may hand it on to a Committee of the House to deal with further. My reason for intervening, and for offering my experience, for what it is worth, to this House, is that since 1924 I have been a member of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. I have taken part in all its work. I was one of a small group that was responsible for the Blue Report. I am sincerely of opinion that this Bill, which has been so much changed and has received so many Amendments since it was here on the last occasion, for its Second Reading, carries out the great, fundamental principles of the Blue Report, and it is because of that, that I am supporting the Motion.
In order that the House may realise what that Blue Report was, it is proper that I should tell the House the constitution of the Traffic Advisory Committee, because the Blue Report received the unanimous approval of that Committee, with the exception of the representative of a small group of independent omnibuses. The committee consists of representatives of the central Government, namely, the Ministry of Transport and the Home Office, the London County Council and the county councils of Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Kent and Hertfordshire, the City of London and the Metropolitan and county boroughs, the Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis and the City of London, and, in addition, it has upon its Board representation of the, great organised Labour groups, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Workers' Union. In addition to that, it has, of course, representatives of the great undertakers, the Underground Group, the Road Haulage Association, the independent omnibus people and, last but not least, a representative of the four amalgamated main line railways.
What are the fundamental conditions which we unanimously adopted, and which must always guide any system of
co-ordination of London Transport? They are these. We believe, first, that all forms of transport are necessary, that you cannot eliminate any, but that they are all vital to the great problems of to-day—the suburban lines, the amalgamated railways, omnibuses, tubes, electric railways, and the tramways. We believe, further, that there should always be some statutory controlling body, who should have no interest in any form of transport, but whose main consideration should be, precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) desires, namely, the interest of the travelling public. We also believe that all these various transport agencies must be self-supporting, that they should receive no subsidies either from the rates or from the taxes. We believe, too, that those people who invest their money in urban transport of all these various kinds, which, after all, is a public utility service, are entitled to a reasonable return upon their capital; and, finally, we say quite frankly that coordination on these lines does not absolutely forbid competition. What it does do is to give protection from the internecine competition which to-day has become so tragic in its consequences; and, in addition, it will protect the public and the taxpayer against the obvious disasters of nationalisation.
The Bill as it stands to-night—I am not now referring to the Bill which Mr. Morrison introduced—after all the long drawn out stages in the Select Committee, after the long negotiations which have been conducted with great patience and skill by the officials of the Ministry of Transport with all kinds of people during the last 18 months, and, finally, after the changes which the Minister has made and has embodied in his White Paper, is, I say in all seriousness, in definite agreement with the Blue Report. I would also say that, if the Conservative Government of 1924–29 had been returned at the General Election of 1929, I believe that a Bill very much on the lines of this Bill which is before the House to-night would have been introduced. I believe that it embodies great principles which they at that time would probably have brought forward themselves.
The story has been told again to-night that this is a Socialist Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham
has made great play with that, and great play is made with it by various opponents of the Bill. I am not going to argue to-night whether the Bill as introduced by Mr. Morrison was Socialistic or not. All I am going to say is that at any rate the Socialist party do not think that it is Socialism. Mr. Morrison three weeks ago faced the Labour party's Conference at Leicester, and, in the name of the executive, proposed that the future Socialist policy for transport and power should be that the Socialist Minister of the day should introduce these great boards, which he should nominate. Mr. Ernest Bevin, who, I think, after all, in many ways is "His Master's Voice," would have none of it, and the result was that the Socialist party in their annual conference repudiated Mr. Morrison. They said, "This is not our Socialism. We repudiate the policy of the London Passenger Transport Bill; we repudiate any idea of conducting the transport of Great Britain on these lines."

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: Was not the objection raised against Mr. Morrison's proposal at the Labour Conference that it did not accord to the Transport Board a definite share of workers' representatives?

Sir H. JACKSON: Mr. Bevin made it quite clear that they would not accept Mr. Morrison's proposal, as outlined at the Conference, that the Minister should himself appoint the Board. They would not accept that as a Socialist policy, and, therefore, I think I am entitled to say that this Bill, whatever it may have been in the past, is no longer Socialism, and I hope that we have heard the last of that particular bogey.
Let me examine briefly the Bill as it is to-night. In the first place, the Minister of Transport, for all practical purposes, has disappeared from the Bill, and in future, if the Bill becomes an Act, the Minister of Transport will not be able to interfere with the conduct of local passenger transport in London. I think the Minister will agree that that is the net result of what has happened. With regard to public control—and here I want to try to reply to the objections which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have raised in regard to fares—all questions of dispute in connection with
fares must now be brought before a judicial tribunal. They will no longer be subject to the discretion of the Minister of Transport, but must be settled by a perfectly fair judicial tribunal, and I want to emphasise the fact that upon that judicial tribunal local interests will be represented. I may say in passing, as one who has had some share in local government in London, that I think that any group of ratepayers who feel aggrieved at the state of affairs will not hesitate, when they know of these conditions, to bring the matter before their local authority, the local authority will be able to make an appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and there will be no difficulty about getting a fair hearing before such a judicial body.
With regard to services, also, the first thing that will happen if any local authority, or, indeed, any great body of public opinion, is dissatisfied with the services now in existence or with future services, will be that they will make their representations to the Traffic Advisory Committee. The new Traffic Advisory Committee is to consist of 39 members, of whom no fewer than 26 will be nominated by local authorities in this great area. That, therefore, is the first vehicle by means of which local opinion can make itself represented on a body which will be very largely local in character. The next step will be that they will themselves place before the judicial tribunal any of these complaints as regards services. Therefore, both as regards fares and as regards existing and new services, there will be that absolute public control which we laid down in the Blue Report as fundamental in regard to any proposal for dealing with London transport.
As the Minister has said to-night, perhaps one of the most important changes in the Bill is in regard to the appointment of the Board. I am not saying for a moment that the composition of the electing trustees Board is ideal. It may well he that during the Committee stage the constitution of the Board may be changed, if the House so desires; it is within the power of the House to do that in the Committee stage. It may well be that they will prefer a body which, perhaps, has a more familiar acquaintance with the problems of trans-
port. But details of that kind will be dealt with during the Committee stage if necessary. Moreover, just as great care has been taken to protect the Board against political influence, by removing the whole thing from Whitehall, so equally, they have been also protected against the pressure of local influence by local authorities, and that again is a factor which is of great importance.
I have alluded to the new constitution of the Advisory Committee, by means of which, as I have said, local authorities are now to be strongly represented. I now come to the financial proposals, which received criticism from both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment. I am surprised at the type of criticism that we have had of these proposals. First of all, the Bill as settled by the Select Committee, which was determined in 1931, was really based upon the year 1930. It is common ground that the financial returns for 1931 were less than those for 1930, and it is a common prediction that the receipts for 1932 will be less than for 1931. Let me give an example. The London County Council in the present financial year will have their traffic receipts down 3.5 per cent. The Metropolitan Railways say their receipts are down 5.9 per cent. The common fund of the Underground is down by 3.7 and the London and Surburban Traction group show a deficit of 2.8. If all great components of the new great merger are in fact suffering alike, it will not really affect the financial stability of the Board. Nor will these participants be any the worse for being related together in one combined undertaking. That is the first thing—that if these conditions are common to all, it will not in any way affect the financial proposals. By Clause 14 (8) the arbitration tribunal set up has the power of dealing with these people who are outside the present agreement very much on the lines of the settlements already made. At the present moment there are not many people outside. There has been a very wonderful agreement as regards the finances under this Bill. The only people who are out are Tillings and the independent omnibus people.
Now I come to the position of the Metropolitan Railway, about which my hon. Friend has made play. With all respect, I do not think he has quite
realised the full financial arrangements with the Metropolitan Railways. The Metropolitan position is to-day identical with the position of the District Railway, the London Electric Railways and the Underground Railways. The ordinary stock-holders are to receive C. stock. The Metropolitan Company are receiving from the pool exactly the same receipts that they would have received had they come in before the Select Committee concluded its labours, but where there is an advantage to the Metropolitan—and this does not affect the Bill in any way—is that the four main line railways have agreed to guarantee the Metropolitan ordinary shareholders a minimum rate of interest over a period of years. That money which may have to be found to implement this guarantee must come from the main line railway companies, and it does not in any way affect the Board. Therefore, my two hon. Friends who have been, saying that the settlement with the Metropolitan in some way would upset the finances of the whole proposals are quite wrong.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: What about the main line railways?

Sir H. JACKSON: The hon. Member is a Member of the Select Committee on this Bill and he should have put the question to the Minister of Transport.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: There was no suggestion that the main line railways were to guarantee the income of the Metropolitan or anybody else.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: This is a surprising development. Have the main line companies' shareholders ever been asked if they want this? It is most astonishing.

9.30 p. m.

Sir H. JACKSON: For the moment I am dealing with the argument that the settlement with the Metropolitan will in some way interfere with the financial stability of the scheme and I am making a statement, which I am advised is correct, that any income which will guarantee the minimum interest will come from the pockets of the main line companies, and will not affect the financial basis on which the scheme is built. What the agreement is with the main lines is naturally outside my knowledge. I am merely making the point, in answer
to my hon. Friend's contention that the Metropolitan agreement will in some way affect the finance of the Bill. The main factor to be watched is that all parties included in the Bill receive a proper proportion of C stock, which carries the risk of the Board's operations being successful or not. The groups who will receive very substantial preferential treatment are certain of the local authorities who are enumerated in the Fourth Schedule. That stock enjoys a very high priority because it ranks after the A stock, which represents the old debenture stock, and the T.F.A. stock which represents redeemable debenture stock. Therefore, these great local authorities are to be placed in a very highly privileged position. The chief authority to enjoy this advantage is the London County Council itself. If my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) follows the lead of the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham and challenges the financial basis of the Bill, may I with all respect suggest to him that, in the first place, with cheap money and with reduced tramway receipts, the London County Council can make a gesture to the Board by offering not to take 4½ per cent. but 4 per cent. on the money? I merely mention that as an obvious gesture, and not because the financial position of the Bill is not sound.
I will not weary the House with the effects of the economies, and whilst it is agreed that any general reduction of staff must be ruled out we are convinced that this great merger will result in very great economies, and those economies will sooner or later have their effect in many ways. One thing on which I do want to comment, because nothing has been said about it to-night, is the relation of this Bill to the main line railways. Those of us who have considered this problem at great length have always found that a very great difficulty. We realised the difficulty to the full, but we could throw no daylight on how they should come into the scheme, and we left it to later on, and hoped that the Board would come to a permanent agreement with the main lines.
This Bill contains a great experiment which may lead to a future development both as regards the main lines—especially in regard to their electrification—and the construction of new tubes. To my knowledge, this is the first real attempt in regard to co-ordination of main line traffic with road traffic. A settlement with the main lines, to my mind, constitutes a part of the Bill which is unique. I believe it is pregnant with tremendous possibilities, and if this London experiment succeeds over this great area, it may well be that an extension of it may be used to deal with the whole transport problem of the country. Because it is the first experiment, I do urge that it is worthy of acceptance by the House. My hon. Friend has asked the House to kill the Bill. I would ask the House to consider what would happen if it were killed. First, the tramways of London would once again become a charge on the rates. Then if we have reduced traffic receipts they would become an increased charge. As to increased fares, about which my hon. Friend talked, there would then be little alternative between going on the rates or increasing the fares. Similarly, for the other undertakings, increased fares will be the only remedy for the present depression. I am very much afraid that unless you have this great Measure, and all the economies which we hope may obtain, increased fares will probably result. Of this I am certain, that you are not going to get any development of underground railways or electrification of main line or suburban railways unless the financial basis of London traffic is settled as a whole as proposed in this Bill.
I have many hon. Friends in this House who represent constituencies in East London, South-East London and North London, and in that great outer fringe of London where new towns and almost new cities are growing up, to whom cheap and efficient travelling facilities are as important as cheap food and cheap houses. They are clamouring for new facilities, new electrified suburban lines and new tubes. I am advised that, until something of this kind is put through and the question of London traffic is settled as a whole, you may dismiss almost for a generation the possibility of these great traffic improvements. You may kill this Bill to-night—
I do not think you will, but, if you do, the problem of London traffic will still be yours. The House will not escape the burden of dealing with the problem by rejecting the Bill. Although the role of the prophet is dangerous, I predict that any fresh Bill, introduced by this or any other Government, will have to follow very closely upon the lines of this Bill. If it is killed, the responsibility is on those who are opposing it to offer some acceptable solution. We have heard nothing but destructive criticism—not an atom of constructive criticism. London transport for a, generation has been the plaything of political parties, who have been lisping their old shibboleths. Now we have a National Government which I am sure will treat this as a great national problem. Once again to-night—it may be the last time—there is an opportunity of dealing with the problem, and I beg the House not to throw it away.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I fully support my hon. Friends the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) and the hon. Member for Lewisham (Sir P. Dawson) in what they have said against the Bill, but I have a complaint to make against the Government, that in 1931, when it was first introduced, it was strenuously opposed by the Conservative party, and, in fighting it, the then President of the Board of Trade made a most delightful speech after which it was utterly impossible to have any other opinion than that the Bill was absolutely rotten. In the Division 224 Conservatives voted against the Second Reading, and 271 Socialists, with the assistance of about 45 Liberals, voted in its favour. The origin of the Bill was simply to squash the Bill that had already been introduced by the county council, which would have had for its object the defeat of the socialisation and nationalisation of the transport of the country. Mr. Morrison, in winding up the Debate, told the House very frankly that this was Socialism in our time. He repeated the words of the President of the Board of Trade, who warned the House that, if they voted for the Bill, they were voting for the nationalisation of transport. I am absolutely anti-Socialist and I am dead against nationalisation. In rejecting this Motion, you are no more killing the
Bill than if the Motion is carried. It simply means that, if the Bill is carried forward as it is, the Government are pledged to carry it through all its stages during the next Session to a successful issue.
I have a very strong objection, as many of my friends in the House and a great many outside have to the administration of the Department. The Ministry of Transport is Socialist to the backbone. The so-called protections that are put in have no meaning at all. If you told them to a lot of unsophisticated school children they might swallow them. They tell you that they have set up a body of experts, or very great authorities, to make nominations to the management. It is simply ridiculous to tell people of the slightest intelligence that these five thoroughly representative men in their own trade would be capable of selecting men to the management of an association of interests such as this will be. The Ministry of Transport are going to obtain by the passage of the Bill an enormous patronage. We have seen that at present they make appointments for purely political purposes, and we shall see before many years are out that any one who wants employment under this authority will be asked in the first place: "Will you undertake to support the socialist organization?" In the course of a few years you will not have a single man working on that enormous area who is not pledged to support the Socialists. I had a very unpleasant experience a short time ago in regard to the appointments which this Department was making, and I wish to point out the danger of placing patronage in the hands of a department which has authority to appoint members on representatives bodies. On one occasion a representative was elected apparently without any reason, and when I asked the Minister of Transport the reason why they should choose a political representative, I was told that there was an arrangement with the Labour party that that party was to be represented on all such bodies.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that I can shorten this matter and ease, my hon. Friend's conscience. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that under this Bill, as amended, the Minister of Transport will not have one single appointment.

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not want to contradict the right hon. Gentleman, but, being a practical man of business and with some common sense, I do not think that the Minister of Transport himself had anything to do with it. He would not know until he had made inquiries. I was told that Mr. Bevin, the head of the Transport Workers' Union, was asked to nominate a man for this position in respect of which politics had never been taken into account before.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is a trade union the Labour party?

Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what is the Labour party?

Mr. JONES: I can with pleasure.

Mr. SAMUEL: The man who was nominated by the Transport Workers' Union had no connection with business whatever. He was, no doubt, a very good man, but he was the leader of the Socialist party in Sunderland and used, no doubt, to speak at the street corners and preach Socialism.

Mr. PYBUS: The hon. Gentleman has informed the House, in an act of kindness to me personally, that doubtless I know nothing about this particular appointment. The facts are that I went into this particular appointment very carefully indeed. The gentleman whom the hon. Member suggests was so deeply wronged by being replaced was 82 years of age and was possibly for natural reasons incapable of carrying out the work any further. The work was intimately connected with transport, and the gentleman who was appointed was experienced in this particular question and was consequently appointed. I take full responsibility for the appointment upon myself.

Mr. SAMUEL: When they heard in Sunderland that the gentleman who had represented the Government for about 30 years was not going to be re-appointed the shipowners and the merchants of Sunderland appointed him as their representative. He was the man whom the Ministry of Transport did not re-appoint. I wish, therefore, to point out the great danger of placing powers in the hands of the Department when it is known that it is dominated by politics. The Bill was introduced last year, and the Conservatives in the Government, on account of
the General Election, carried it over. It was carried over almost without any discussion, and the Bill should have been allowed to die a natural death. I recollect in the last Parliament, when there were about 45 Liberals and 280 Socialists, the Liberals used to follow the Socialists into the Lobby, and we nicknamed them the "Patient Oxen." Now that we have 400 Conservatives and about GO Liberals and Socialists, I should like to know what the Liberals are to call us. If we patiently sit quiet and allow a lot of Socialist legislation to be passed, it will really be a question of the tail wagging the dog. I am, of course, speaking for myself. The attitude of the Conservative party is bound to create a bad impression in the country, and I think that in the interests of the country the Conservatives ought to hold to their principles and not follow blindly the Socialist principles.

Dr. SALTER: I rise on behalf of my colleagues upon these benches to support the Motion of the Minister of Transport and to oppose the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan). The Bill in its broad outlines and principles, apart from minor details is desired by almost everyone concerned with, or interested in the London traffic problems. It is desired by everybody, except a few people, who as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) admitted, allow their political prejudices to override all other considerations. We had a complete demonstration of that from the hon. Member. The Bill represents—I think I can claim it quite definitely—the greatest measure of agreement ever secured upon the London transport question, which up to the present has baffled Government after Government. Hon. Members ought to be very grateful to Mr. Morrison for his great work in this regard and his success in reconciling all kinds of divergent claims and previously irreconcilable difficulties. It was a very great triumph on his part of patience and of negotiation.
I would remind the House that bodies concerned directly in London transport either support or accept the Bill or have made agreements with the present Government or the last Government. First of all, there are the whole of the tramway-owning local authorities in greater London. The City Corporation have
passed a Resolution in favour of the Bill. The City Corporation possess tramway powers although they do not exercise them. The London County Council have come to a financial understanding with the Government on the matter, and, as I mentioned earlier in my challenge to the hon. Member for East Fulham, they have not declared themselves against tonight's Motion by the Minister of Transport. It is not supporting officially the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Fulham, but I make this further challenge that any member of the London County Council who speaks or votes for the Amendment is doing so purely in his individual capacity, and not in his capacity as representing the London County Council. The Middlesex County Council, I am given to understand, has sent a wire to every one of the representatives in its area in this House calling upon them to support the Bill. Lord Ashfield's groups of companies—the omnibus companies and the tube companies—have approved the Bill, and Lord Ashfield has publicly, on several occasions, expressed his support of the Bill as it stands at the present time. The Metropolitan Railway, which has been mentioned on several occasions, is now supporting. A number of independent omnibus and coach companies are also supporting, but some groups of what is known as "pirate omnibuses" are opposing. The whole of the main line railway companies are supporting the Bill. The hon. Member for East Fulham talked about the 4,000,000,000 passengers carried each year in London. I would remind him that 93 per cent., if not 95 per cent., of those passengers are transported by concerns who are now supporting the Bill.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I do not think that I have ever denied that the interested parties who have had their claims satisfactorily settled are now supporting the Bill.

Dr. SALTER: I am trying to demonstrate the tremendous measure of support which has been and is being given to the Bill at present before the House. The Opposition is really organised by the London Municipal Societies, as the hon.
Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) knows perfectly well, and it is being organised for political reasons and not with regard to any consideration for the public welfare.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I desire absolutely to challenge that statement. I have stated, in the hearing of the House, that I am not concerned with any interest which is anti-railway or pro-road, or anything of that sort. I stand here in my endeavour to defend the interests of a vast number of passengers, and to protect what I believe to be their interests, and no other.

10.0 p.m.

Dr. SALTER: The question is not whether this is a Socialist Bill, or a non-Socialist Bill, or an anti-Socialist Bill. The question is whether it is a sensible Bill, a, practical Bill, and whether it will do anything towards solving the terrific problem of London transport. That is the only consideration that should be in the minds of hon. Members when they go to the Division. The Mover of the Amendment said that, from his point of view, there was no ground or reason for doing anything in the matter at the present time. He added that he was more concerned, and he has just repeated his concern, for for the interests of the passengers. The unification and co-ordination of London transport represents a problem which is desperately urgent, and something must he done in the matter. There are millions of people in the Metropolis who are suffering untold miseries every day through the lack of a co-ordinated transport system. Traffic blocks are growing worse week by week. Some London streets are becoming almost impassable, and the poorer people who have to get to their work at fixed times are being subjected to greater discomfort day after day. Discomfort is hardly the word to use to describe what these people have to put up with. Yesterday morning I had to go from my own district in Bermondsey to Liverpool Street Station. It is a straight omnibus run from my door to the station. I could walk the distance in less than half an hour, but it took me 48 minutes by omnibus to cover that
distance. That is only one illustration. Everyone who is familiar with London knows perfectly well that the blockages are becoming worse each week. Nothing has been done and nothing will be done and nothing can be done unless this Bill, or a Bill on somewhat identical lines, is passed.
The Amendment if carried would postpone anything being done for at least another 12 months, and probably two years. That would inflict unnecessary hardship upon the 4,000,000,000 passengers for whom the hon. Member for East Fulham is so concerned, by delaying the passage of the Bill. Five years ago there was a public inquiry by the direction of the Minister of Transport, on the problem of London traffic. It was initiated owing to the representation of the London borough councils in consequence of complaints which had been made to them by the inhabitants of their district as to the difficulties under which they were travelling to and from their work. All kinds of recommendations were made, but nothing whatever has been done since that time to ease the problem, except the drafting of this Bill.

Sir WILLIAM RAY: May I remind the hon. Member that his Government killed the two Bills that would have solved the problem.

Dr. SALTER: Everyone who knows anything about the problem admits that those Bills are completely out of date.

Sir W. RAY: You said that nothing had been done.

Dr. SALTER: They are completely out of date and would not be introduced by any responsible Minister at the present time. The hon. Member knows that perfectly well. The boroughs at that time felt so strongly about the matter, and that the question was so urgent, that they went to very considerable expense in engaging counsel to represent them, and to urge a number of solutions which were put forward. Nothing has been done and there is no hope, let this be plainly understood, of getting any relief tube service in the metropolis unless we pass this Bill. The hon. Member for Richmond and the hon. Member for East Fulham know that.

Sir W. RAY: No.

Dr. SALTER: It has been stated by Lord Ashfield. Lord Ashfield who, as everyone knows, controls the tube railways, has stated that there is no prospect of his companies doing anything in this regard unless this Bill is passed. The chairman of the London and North Eastern Railway has also stated publicly that there is no prospect of any further suburban electrification of his line unless this Bill is carried. I do not say that that applies to the Southern Railway, but I do say that it applies to the London and North Eastern Railway, which has to convey the teeming millions of passengers to and from the North and North-East of London. I support the Bill because I am satisfied that it affords a really effective solution of the London transport problem. Apart from a group of politicians, who oppose it on political grounds, it is supported by nearly all the great business interests in the City of London and throughout the Metropolis and by people who understand the problem and desire something to be done. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that the Bill would put the London transport services into the hands of a solid monopoly. May I remind him that he was one of the strongest supporters of the Electricity Bill, which did precisely the same thing to what he is now objecting.

Sir P. DAWSON: The Electricity Bill was quite a different thing to the present Measure. It provided for supervision but not for ownership.

Dr. SALTER: The hon. Member is mistaken. The grid is owned not merely controlled by the Central Electricity Board.

Sir P. DAWSON: The hon. Member is quite incorrect. The Central Electricity Board do not own any power stations of any kind.

Dr. SALTER: It owns the grid which is the vital means for conveying electricity. As a matter of fact, the framework of this Bill is precisely the same as that of the Electricity Bill which provided a monopoly and was moved by the president of the Anti-Socialist Union. About £40,000 of Government money has already been expended on this Bill and I understand that from £60,000 to £80,000 of
shareholders' money has also been spent in representation before the Joint Committee and other ways. The whole of this expenditure on behalf of the public and shareholders is now to be thrown away merely to satisfy the dignity and political prejudices of the London Municipal Society and a few of its adherents.

Sir P. DAWSON: I have nothing to do with the London Municipal Society.

Dr. SALTER: The Labour party are not satisfied with the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee. It does not go anywhere near as far as we desire. We are also strongly opposed to the suggested Government amendments, and we shall have something to say on them when the Bill reaches Committee. But we are not going to support what is a wrecking Amendment and, speaking for my hon. Friends, I have to say that we shall vote with the Government to-night, somewhat reluctantly so far as our own political prejudices are concerned, for the Bill and against the Amendment.

Mr. HUTCHISON: My chief concern about this Bill is that I cannot see that it holds out any hope of cheaper or more efficient transport for the 139,000 constituents I represent. There is no doubt that there is a great need for cheaper transport. Let me read a letter I received last June from a man giving his weekly budget. He earns from the State a weekly wage of Ms. His rent is 14s., fares 10s., insurance 2s. 6d., furniture 2s., milk for the baby 4s. 6d., and himself 1s. daily, which leaves 11s. for the whole of his family for food and clothing for a week. It is obvious that such people need as cheap and efficient transport as they can get to and from their work. This is a growing district. The electorate has increased by 14,000 since October last year. One feature of this Bill is the elimination of competition. Competition has been the very essence of transport extension around London.
Let me give one instance. Where the London County Council tramways run there is a mid-day fare of 2d. the whole way. The omnibus company which runs over the same routes also have a mid-day 2d. fare, but as soon as they reach the end of the tramway system they pass on to the full ordinary fare, they do not extend the 2d. fare, which proves that
competition is valuable in keeping fares down. Neither are new services likely to be developed by the body which is to control all the London traffic. I do not suppose that the London Advisory Board will be very interested in extending a service to Sunny Town, or some such new conglomeration of buildings which are arising almost every day in some part of London. They will not do it for the simple reason that most probably it will not pay them to run the larger coaches which they run to other parts of London to these new conglomerations. In the past this has been undertaken by individuals who could afford to run cheap omnibuses, which were adequate for the people until the district had grown so large that the larger omnibus services came in and reaped a pleasant profit for themselves.
It is obvious that any suggestions for the improvement of traffic will be mainly viewed by the Board from the dividend earning point of view. If, for instance, an underground service is to he accelerated by 50 per cent., the acceleration will have to be paid for by other services, and the traffic will be diverted as far as possible to the underground, while the other services will be cut down it means that competition will disappear and the whole thing placed in the hands of the underground. If the scheme is a success everything will depend on the genius of the five members of the Board. These are the Chairman of the London County Council, a representative of the London Advisory Committee, the Chairman of the London Clearing Bankers, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and the President of the Law Society. These gentlemen, probably most admirable in their own posts, surely do not understand the London traffic problem. But when this Board has been appointed there is no provision in the Bill for their removal if they are inefficient. Surely this is much too rigid for a Bill of this sort.
The whole financial structure of the Bill seems to me unsound, especially when one remembers that this Government proposed the conversion of War Loan not so long ago, and that it was admirably carried through by the people of this country. Surely in these days of cheap money 4½ per cent. to 6 per cent. is too
much to expect to pay people as dividends. If private enterprise builds a new tube or extends an omnibus service, that private enterprise has to make the service pay or go under. Under this scheme it is obvious that the Board, or whoever it may be, who carry out these new schemes, will not go under, because they will have the power to increase the fares so as to make the whole scheme pay. They will have to make it pay because they will have to pay dividends to their shareholders. The shareholders are far more concentrated than the people living in the outer districts of London, and as a body are far more able to make a protest than the few individuals who live outside.
Another question is, how are those people who live in Essex and other districts to voice their disapproval of this scheme? They have to do it through some local body. Is every individual to call a meeting in his district and to get the local council to make a protest because the omnibus service is not adequate? It seems almost ridiculous, considering the number of complaints there are continuously. It is obvious that as a result of these operations the whole tendency will be to eliminate and reduce services from the outside of London into London. The latest infliction on omnibus users, under another semi-State-controlled board, the Traffic Commissioners, is a minimum fare. People who recently have been travelling for fivepence and seven-pence by omnibus cannot travel by omnibus now unless they pay 1s. That is the sort of thing we already see where competition has been ruled out.
Is this gigantic scheme really necessary? Would it not be much better to proceed gradually as we have been proceeding Transport in London is not completely chaotic. It is quite easy to get outside London, as I know, for I use the omnibus and tram services to reach various outlying districts. Would it not be better to consider how the interests of town planning can be developed with the transport interest? A great many of the complications of London transport to-day are due to the fact that there has not been town planning, and that small districts have sprung up without any planning whatever.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: It is not often that I feel I can address the House clothed in a white sheet, but I do so to-night because I was not a Member of the last Parliament. I feel that in my absence the Conservative party committed a very grave error. To-night I hope later to listen to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies bringing his mind back from our distant Colonies to a speech which he made in the last Parliament, and I hope he is going to contradict many of the things he said at that time. He then endeavoured to defeat this Bill in general principle, and I hope he is going to try to support it to-night. I had the temerity during the last Parliament to take exception to a memorial which was presented to the leader of our party by some of the more virulent opponents of this Bill. I was immediately taken to task by my late boss and called Bolshevik, but to-night I am delighted to be able to support the Government in supporting the Bill, and to receive, I hope the praises and smiles of the Whipsnade end of the Treasury Bench.
The greatest mistake ever made in connection with this Bill was that the late Minister of Transport described it as a Socialist Measure. I believe he only did so in order to get a little more support from his own party but that speech damned the Bill from the point of view of the genuine old standard Conservative. That speech has been quoted ever since as a damning indictment against this Measure. The hon. Member who has just spoken brought into the Debate what I thought we should hear about—"the merits of healthy competition." I hope that in matters of transport the House will realise that if there is anything which will damage the efficiency of transport it is what is called "healthy competition." The germ of this Bill is to be found further back than the Minister suggested. It goes back to the period of the War when Lord Ashfield got leave from this House to pool the resources of the omnibuses and the tubes. They were potential competitors but when that consent was given, for the first year the tubes kept the omnibuses going. Afterwards, the conditions of traffic changed. The motor omnibus was introduced and from that time until now the omnibuses of London have kept the tubes alive. Had it not been for that community of interests I
think that tubes to-day would be dead. The omnibuses contribute no less than £500,000 a year. That is the germ of the Bill.
We have progressed from that stage to a visualisation of something even bigger from the point of view of merging receipts. I think it was a pity that the late Minister of Transport did not accept the two Conservative Measures. They would not have stopped the development of this Bill but the consideration of London traffic problems has been allowed to get into such a party spirit, that the position has become exceedingly difficult. From my point of view it is pleasant to see the National Government dealing with this question from a rather bigger point of view than that which has been presented by the municipal party on the London County Council. I was on the London County Council and I have a tremendous respect and admiration for those who lead the London County Council. They could teach Members of Parliament more about party politics than most Members of Parliament know. Consequently when one is opposed to them one has to listen with grave attention to all that they say but I cannot help thinking that the London County Council appear to me always to have viewed traffic questions through tramway spectacles. Consequently their general outlook on traffic has never been a healthy one. London from a traffic point of view, is like the Curate's Egg. Parts of it are excellent. The West End is well served, but what about those new cities which are growing up on the east and the north? The hon. Member who has just spoken says that they will be supplied by private omnibuses.
These new towns which are growing up are too far from London to be served by omnibuses. They want railways and tubes. Who is going to put in those tubes? You will not get the public to subscribe to make a tube to an area which is not developed. Consequently you will find a number of these outskirt towns absolutely divorced from communication with the centre of London. It is only by viewing this thing from a big point of view, and putting the whole resources of every form of traffic into one pool, that you will be able to build such a thing as a tube railway to an area which, at first, perhaps, will not pay, but which by virtue of the very
railway which you are building will develop and eventually bring in a profit to the whole system. I do not want to go into what are really Committee points, nor is this a Second Reading Debate Surely we have investigated the subject long enough and do not want to throw away all the money that was spent on the investigation which was made last. Session. Let us start again next Session where we left off last time.

Sir W. RAY: I am following the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), not with a great degree of pleasure, because when he offered his services to us on the other side of the water, we did not have him with us long enough to appreciate him to the full. Consequently, I can forgive him for saying that the London County Council has always looked upon the question of London traffic through tramway spectacles. That might have been said 26 or 27 years ago, when the Liberal Progressive party was in power in London and simply looked at everything from the tramway point of view, but in recent years the tramway side has not made that appeal to those responsible for London administration that some hon. Members still might think. We have not the slightest objection to the London tramway service passing under common management and being worked on coordinated lines. I want to disabuse the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey and anyone else that we are rigidly adhering to the possession of the tramway system. We have shown ourselves in recent years perfectly willing to throw our tramway system into the common pool, so long as the first principles in which we believe are observed at the same time.
Some of us believe still, possibly being old-fashioned Tories, that private ownership is still superior to public ownership. Some of us believe that it is quite possible in these days to get a co-ordinated system of traffic, with common management and all the rest of it, without the abandonment of the principle of private enterprise and private ownership, and we have shown to London—and this House accepted the proposals which we put forward—that we were able to produce a scheme which would have produced everything that this vaunted scheme is alleged
to be going to produce, and yet at the same time retain the very principles for which the Conservative party have always stood. It seems to be unfashionable in this House at the moment to mention the word "Conservative," but perhaps it will do no harm to use it once or twice. I would have the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey to believe that in the efforts which we made a few years ago to solve this problem we were only animated by a desire to carry out what the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) firmly wished us to carry out in those days, but which he seems to have conveniently forgotten to-night.
10.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth and others were responsible for what is known as the Blue Report on the London traffic problem, a report which advocated common management, the pooling of receipts and expenditure, and all the advantages which co-ordination could give. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth tells us to-night that this Bill contains all the fundamentals of that report, but he does not tell us that it contains something which was not a fundamental and that is the public ownership of the whole of these undertakings, the very rock on which we are splitting to-night. The Blue Report was a basis on which we acted in maintaining——

Sir H. JACKSON: Believe me, there is no public ownership in this Bill at all. Every shareholder will still own his stock.

Sir W. RAY: It is a most extraordinary thing that the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth was one of those who, inside and outside, joined in the denunciation of the Bill two years ago, when it was looked upon as a Bill to provide for public ownership. Things alter very much in the course of a couple of years. On the whole, we still prefer to believe that, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, the Bill possesses the fundamental vices that it possessed two years ago. I am extremely sorry to find myself in opposition to the leading men of the party tonight. I am particularly sorry to find that I am in opposition to my own representative in Parliament, but I know that he will forgive me on this occasion. The
hon. Member for West Bermondsey, I am afraid, does not know much about the proceedings of the London County Council, although he ought to do so. His "better half" is there, at all events, and I think that he might be better informed of what we are doing. If he were, he would never have imagined that an Amendment tabled in this House about a week ago would reach the County Council in time for discussion before to-night. It was unfair of the hon. Member to twit the hon. Member for East Fulham, because the Amendment in his name had not received the support of the London County Council.

Dr. SALTER: You have had a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the London County Council this afternoon. Did you then recommend the County Council to pass a resolution in opposition?

Sir W. RAY: The hon. Gentleman does not yet know, evidently, that the London County Council had confined the whole of their attention, as they rightfully should, to the local government aspect of the problem. They do not interfere in party politics. They confine the whole of their criticism, except at one point in the preamble to a report on the principle of the Bill, to the points connected with the local government side of the problem. I wish to say, on the matter generally, that those of us who have been interested in London government, and particularly in London traffic for some 20 years, feel that this is not necessarily the right solution. We feel that this House to-night, a House composed very differently from the last House, is being asked to take something on trust.
Without venturing to go too far, I think that one can safely assert that the great majority of Members of the House have only a. passing knowledge of the contents of the London Passenger Transport Bill. It cannot be expected that a body with such a large number of new Members should know very much about the details of the Bill, which occupied so much time in the last Parliament. If the Government were asking the House to refer the Bill once more to a Select Committee, there would not be a word to be said against it. I for one would not say a single word in protest against an action of that kind; but I do suggest to those
in charge of the Bill that to come to this House and ask that a Bill which only went through Committee in this House by the vote of the Chairman—[Interruption] —I do not say the casting vote. The Bill was only passed by the vote of the Chairman. Anything of importance was passed by only five votes to four, and the remission of this Bill to the House was carried by that single vote of the Chairman. Therefore, I maintain that we have a case when we ask that it should go back to a Select Committee of the House. I do not think we are asking anything at all unfair.
When hon. Members realise that the Bill was strongly contested all along the line before the Committee and that the divisions throughout were so acute and so close, we have a right to expect that it should receive greater consideration than a Committee of the Whole House can give to it during a couple of days, perhaps, or something like that. Before a Committee of the Whole House it will not receive the examination to which it is entitled as a Bill concerning between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000 people in an area of over 1,800 square miles, and affecting considerably more than £100,000,000 of capital. In view of the fact that the Bill was almost approaching defeat in Committee in the last Parliament what we ask is only fair to a new House facing new problems and facing the demand of some people, at all events, who know what this problem is. I beg those on the Government Front Bench to satisfy some people who are longing to follow them on all occasions and regret it very bitterly when they cannot. I beg them to throw a sop to us.
We will withdraw all our opposition to-night if they say the Bill will be sent back to a Select Committee. [Interruption.] I am extremely sorry. Apparently it points to a determination on the part of the Government to flout the will of a great many of their supporters. I bitterly regret to have to say it, but it means that the Government intend to-night to flout the opinion of 220 men who voted with the Colonial Secretary on his Motion a year ago, to flout the opinion of at least 150 Members of the House who signed a memorial to the Lord President of the Council on the matter. All these things could be avoided if we were only assured that the
Bill would receive proper consideration, but we do not feel that a two days' Committee stage before the whole House can settle the enormous problems which face anyone who is going to tackle a problem of this kind. I regret very deeply that the suggestion that has been made cannot be carried out.
I shall be told that the Minister of Transport, by the electoral college he has set up, has removed all the objections that were made some little time ago. There are four -or five estimable gentlemen, the only name missing, I think, is that of "Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all." Instead of the Minister appointing a junta of five to run London's traffic in an area of 1,800 square miles we are to get five men appointed by the electoral college. I have no objection to that. I do not trouble a great deal about the details of the Bill. Probably they will make as good appointments as some Ministers of Transport—I am not referring to the present one for whom I have respect—would make, and consequently I have nothing to say on that matter, but I say that for a Government which has been elected on a very broad issue to place the control of policy in the hands of five selected officials, is the very negation -of what the people of this country want.
On every side we hear talk of the rangers of a bureaucratic form of Government. I do not see for one moment why five paid officials, whoever selects them, should control the policy of this great London area. There is no body, private or public that I know of, and no public company, which would allow its officials to dictate its policy. I believe that the London County Council was quite correct in asking that a policy board should be placed over the officials who are appointed to carry out the day-to-day administration. I think the Government is wrong in its efforts to let paid officials dictate the policy of the great area of which London will be the centre. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Soviet."] A Soviet, if you will; I do not mind what you call it. The word "Soviet" was used in the Debate a year ago by a much greater nine than I am. The word might well be applied to some of the things that are being done to-day.
These are a few points that I wanted to place before the House, in considera-
tion of the claim that we have made that it is not fair to ask us to take this without protest. The official attitude of the Conservative party on that famous Second Reading contained six specific items. The Mover of the official Amendment objected to the Bill on the part of the party, because it provided for the nationalisation of London passenger transport; it deprived local authorities of control in respect of their various undertakings; it took the property of private owners out of their control, and it gave them no option of sale. I maintain that those four points are still within the framework of the Bill. The bureaucratic power of the Minister has been taken out, and an alteration has been made in the tribunal in regard to appeals, but the first four points, on which the Conservative Members were asked to support our Front Bench a year ago, are still in the Bill. Consequently, we have a right to expect much more consideration in regard to this matter than is proposed to be given to us in remitting this Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.
I will not quote anybody else, but dangers were pointed out with respect to the Bill at that time. I am puzzled, as I am sure many Member's of the House are puzzled, as to why this change of opinion has come about. I used to come into the Lobbies and Committee rooms of this House on the invitation of leading Members of the party in those days, and we were asked to continue strongly our opposition to the Bill; but the Members of the party who begged us in those days, a year ago, to fight this Bill to the bitter end, are to-day the leading supporters of the Measure. Why is that? What is the reason for it? Is there something connected with the remarkable generosity which has been discovered by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth? Is it because the main line railways are generously going to provide everything that the Metropolitan Railway wants? They will be coming along and subsidising the London County Council's tramways before they have finished. We cannot understand what is the reason for the change of heart and the change of mind, and I am sure we are all anxiously waiting to hear the Colonial Secretary tell us how it is that this remarkable conversion and wearing of a white sheet has become so necessary.
So far as London traffic is concerned, it is wrong to suppose that this is necessarily the last solution. It is wrong to believe, as has been said to-night, that there is no prospect of money being obtained for tube extensions unless this Bill goes through. All these semi-threats have been made from time to time. It is a well known fact, however, that many of us who are interested in London local government have stated that we have always been prepared to come into this affair on the principle of mixed ownership and mixed management. The London County Council and the great municipal authorities of the area would not stand out in regard to the provision of the necessary capital if private enterprise could not raise it. But there is a difference between full public ownership and what is known in many countries as a type of mixed undertaking, and those hon. Members who feel that this is the only solution can disabuse their minds of that idea to a considerable extent, because we are not so little public-spirited that we are not prepared to take our share in whatever burden is necessary in the interests of London traffic.
That is all that I have to say on this matter. I recognise that the battalions are against us—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then shall I say the big guns? I feel that it is impossible to come to this House to-night, after having for nearly 21 years taken part in London government, and allow this proposal to go through without making some form of protest. At the same time, every protest would be withdrawn if we could only get, as I ask once more from the Government Front Bench, their consent to this Bill going again to a Select Committee.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very glad to respond to the appeal of my constituent and old friend to reply, not only on behalf of the Government, for whom I will give a brief but very full reply, but also on behalf of myself. I say at once that the very last thing I am going to do is to stand in a white sheet. If I may say so to my hon. Friend with respect, I am fully entitled to speak in this House to-night as to what were the motives which actuated the Conservative party, whom I had the honour of leading on this subject in this House in a Parliament of which I was a Member and my hon. Friend was not, in framing that Resolution, and, at any rate, what were
the objections which I raised to this Bill in its original form. To that I will come in a moment.
Let me deal at once with a point which he raised. He made an appeal to the Government not to flout the opinions of the House. The last thing in the world the Government would wish to do on this or any other matter is to flout the opinion of its supporters or of the House, but the hon. Gentleman must not claim in that behalf to dictate precisely how the opinion of the House shall be taken. He is quite entitled to say that on a Measure of great importance like this the House should have a full opportunity of expressing its opinion, not only on principle, but on detail. That is quite right, but the opinion of the House means an opinion given by all the Members of the House, and not the opinion of two or three people.
When the hon. Member has been a little longer in this House, and has bad as much experience of it as he has had of lie London County Council which he has led so ably, he will find over and over again Members of this House say they do not get enough chance of considering Bills on the Floor of the House. They get the Second Reading, and the Bill goes upstairs to a small Committee. That is said even when the Committee represents all parties in the House and has 60, 70 or 80 Members on it and still more of a committee consisting only of a few Members who are put there not really to represent the opinion of the House but for the express purpose or hearing evidence given by witnesses and hearing their cross-examination and making their report to the House. That is not the way the opinion of the House, as a House, is expressed. The way that opinion is expressed is, in the first place on Second Reading where principle is decided. I say frankly to the House that the Debate to-night, whatever it may be in form, is, in fact, a Second Reading Debate, where the House is deciding whether or not it is going on with this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) in a very pleasing speech, in which he paid off some old scores at his late friends, said that what we had to do to-night, was to give the Bill a quiet burial and to see that it died. It would really have been more
accurate for him to have said: "Let us see that the Bill is strangled at birth. That is what we wish to do and that is the issue that the House will decide." I am all for getting the opinion of the House, supporters and opponents, and of the Whole House, on the principle, and on that principle we are going to vote. [HON. MEMBERS "Take the Whips off."] Certainly not. No Government worthy of its salt is going to do other than stand by its policy, or is going to say to this House that it does not know its own mind and then to go to some other body for directions. In this House the Government makes its policy plain, stands by it, puts on its Whips, and uses the ordinary Parliamentary procedure and no Government worthy of its salt would do anything else. We are going to take a decision now, and then the Bill will come before a Committee of the Whole House exactly in the way that hon. Members insist that they ought to be able to deal with 1.he details of a Bill, and the fullest opportunity will then be given of criticising the Bill Clause by Clause, and debating not only Government but other Amendments. Talk about flouting one's supporters or the opinions of the House! There is no other practical way in which you can get the genuine opinion of Members of the House on these important questions than by bringing the Bill to the House in that way. I give the assurance on behalf of the Government that I was asked to give, that full opportunity of discussion will be given when the Bill comes before a Committee of the Whole House.
In form this is a Motion to carry over. The Amendment is framed on two grounds, one constitutional, and the other on merits. We have not heard very much about the constitutional argument. So called constitutional arguments are apt to wear a little bit thin. The last Parliament took a much more novel step than the House is asked to take now when it carried the Bill over not from one Session to another, but from one Parliament to another. That was indeed unusual. Why did it do that? In order that the time that had been spent on the Bill in detailed consideration should not be wasted and in order that the Bill might be brought up and considered in the new Parliament. It is idle to say there was not a mandate to deal with this in the next
House. Of course it was before the country. The last Parliament had passed the Bill over into the next Parliament and everyone knew that it was bound to come up.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: There was certainly a statement made that controversial matters would not be brought forward. One might have taken that as too definite an assurance, but it certainly weighed with many of us.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend is quite wrong. That was in the first National Government. Will anyone suggest that this Government is to be precluded from dealing with controversial subjects?

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: This is a Bill introduced by a previous Government and strongly opposed by a particular party in the House, and it was not a Measure of that sort that was expected to be regarded as non-controversial.

11.0 p.m.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My hon. Friend must really be fair and must not allege that the Government has broken pledges. No pledge was given about introducing non-controversial Measures assuming this to be a controversial Measure. On the contrary, this Government asked Parliament to pass the Bill over to the next Parliament. Automatically the Bill comes up for consideration, not before a Select Committee, but before a Committee of the whole House. That was why the thing was done, and it had to be done. [Interruption.]
I come to what I think is very much more important, and that is the merits of the Bill. I am not going into any detailed Committee points. The Bill will be fully considered in Committee. But I am very much concerned to meet the argument that the Bill, as the House will be asked to consider it in respect of Government Amendments which have been announced, will be the Bill which. I invited the House to reject two years ago. I say emphatically that if it were that Bill and if the Amendments to be moved by the Government and for which they take responsibility were
not to be moved, I should not be supporting the Bill to-day. I am entitled to express an honest opinion as much as anyone else in the House. I respect my hon. Friend's opinions. If he conscientiously objects to the Bill let him vote against it, but do not let him or my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir W. Ray) impute other motives to those who have served this House equally long and with an equal tradition for sincerity in their opinions.
I will give my opinion frankly. I would not hesitate in a, national Government in a national crisis to compromise on any Act, but I am supporting this Bill to-night not as a matter of compromise, but on its merits, because in the form in which we have it now it is not only desirable but right and necessary. I will explain why. When I moved the rejection of the Bill two years ago, I stated, on behalf of my party, that we thought co-ordination of London traffic absolutely essential. I speak now for myself. I made it plain on that Bill in all discussions with the London County Council or anybody else that the essential to co-ordination was executive control of the whole organisation. I did not believe that it would work in any other way. I said so repeatedly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond will remember that he and his friends had a discussion with me and Sir Laming Worthington-Evans as representing the leaders of the Conservative party as to the exact line we were going to take. I challenge him to deny that this was the line we took.

Sir W. RAY: I have not copies, naturally, of those discussions with me, and I should neither challenge nor do otherwise than accept anything the right hon. Gentleman said.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member will recall that the view that we expressed was that co-ordination was necessary, and that if you were to have co-ordination you must have executive control. You must have the control of the whole operations of the board in the hands of the executive. That I regard as absolutely essential. I say frankly to my hon. Friend that I never shared his penchant for municipal Socialism as distinct from State Socialism. The real burden of his song was that municipal tramways were not to be taken over but should be run as municipal tramways.

Sir W. RAY: May I appeal for your protection, Mr. Speaker? What I stated to-night was that I had not the slightest objection to municipal tramways being taken into an undertaking with common management, with a common pool and with common receipts. I said distinctly that the other point of view was almost pre-Adamite Liberal-Progressive.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am delighted, because we are much nearer agreement than I thought. If that be so, then my hon. Friend does not object to the amalgamation of the tramways?

Sir W. RAY indicated assent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am delighted. I thought that was the bone of contention. He does not object to the tramways and other undertakings being taken over into one amalgamation which will run as a single entity. The only dispute then is as to what sort of board should run it. There again I am perfectly clear. I have always expressed this opinion that I am opposed to some immense board consisting of representatives of every kind of local authority. I do not believe that a board of that kind could run a great transport undertaking. The real complaint to-day, the complaint that hon. Members have made in all quarters of the House about railway hoards, was that they were too large, that you want to have a small effective, expert, executive board devoting the whole of its time to the management of the business. I think there is great force in that criticism. That is the kind of board we want, and that is the kind of board that is going to be set up.
What did I quarrel with in the Bill? I said, in the first place, that the power ought not to be in the hands of the Minister. I think that is absolutely essential. If the Minister had the power to appoint the board, that would be Socialism, because he could appoint anybody he liked. It would be a ministerial appointment, without any responsibility for how the thing would run. The Board will be appointed by trustees. I am not going to discuss whether you have the best set of trustees or not. I was originally in favour of the shareholders, whether of main railways, underground railways, or of tramways, appointing a board exactly as a private undertaking would
do, but it has been put to me, not least by the London County Council, that that would put, the appointment of the whole board into the hands of the largest unified group, and, therefore, you must take some system of the kind now proposed. My first objection is met. It is taken out of the hands of the Minister.
My second objection was that the Minister ought not to be a court of appeal on fares and facilities, but that it should be left to an independent tribunal. That is now met. We have a Government Amendment tabled, so that the Minister will have nothing to do with it, and it will go, as the Conservative party asked for when we were opposing the Bill before, to the Railway Rates Tribunal, which is the proper body for the purpose. A further objection that I put was this. I said to the Minister of Transport at the time: "Why should you come down now with a Bill like this? You ought to conduct your negotiations with the different parties, with the various municipalities, with the main line railway companies, the Underground railway companies, the Metropolitan Railway and so on. You ought to get agreement over a wide field and then come to the House for an enabling Bill and no one will oppose you." That is exactly what has happened. We have had three agreements entered into, but not under duress. There are people in the House who represent the main line railways, there are people who can speak for the Metropolitan Railway and people who can speak for the Middlesex County Council, as I can, and they can say that the agreement has not been made under duress. These people must he presumed to know their own business best. We have therefore been met on these essential points on which I, on behalf of the Conservative party, opposed the Bill. We have the Bill now in a form in which I could have supported it if it had been introduced by any Minister or by any Government. I do not think anyone who realises what London traffic is to-day and the position of the main line railways, the need for co-ordination, not merely or chiefly in the interests of the railways and railway development and survival, but also the vital need for economy and co-ordination in the interests of the people for whom hon. Members claim to speak and for whom I claim to speak—the travelling public—
can doubt that if some measure of coordination does not come, the travelling public would seek in vain for those facilities which they have a right to demand. That is the issue on which the House is asked to vote, and it will have a full opportunity of discussing the Bill in all its details when it comes before the House in Committee. I beg the House sincerely to support the Bill which is now in a form in which I believe the majority of those who acted with me on the previous occasion would have been only too glad to have supported it.

Sir J. NALL: I only rise to ask the Colonial Secretary if he will answer one point which has been made during the Debate, and to which I am astonished he did not refer in his speech. At eight o'clock I had no intention of making a speech, and when I listened to the Minister of Transport I was disposed to vote for the Bill on the clear statement which he made. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) interrupted the Minister of Transport and said that if.the Metropolitan shareholders were satisfied who need Object? The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) later on said that the main line shareholders had given a guarantee to the Metropolitan shareholders. Therefore the Metropolitan shareholders did not object. The House has not been told, and I have seen no record anywhere, of the form or manner with which the main line companies have agreed to guarantee anything to the Metropolitan company, and I want to ask the Minister of Transport or the Colonial Secretary to tell us what is the amount of the contingent liability which the main line shareholders have guaranteed, in what proportion it is guaranteed by the four main line companies, and under what conditions is the guarantee likely to he called upon; also whether it will rank before the guaranteed stocks of the main line companies or after the guaranteed stocks? I was astonished that the Colonial Secretary, in the light of the disclosure made by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth, should say that, on this Bill, at this stage and in this Parliament, which was mainly elected for the purpose of reversing the things which the last Parliament did, it is not necessary to have
a Select Committee, when entirely novel matters are to be introduced in Committee stage of the whole House. That is an entirely unprecedented thing, and in my view, an improper thing, to do, on a Bill of this kind. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) said that the Board is modelled on the lines of that in the Electricity Act. He is not wholly right. The Central Electricity Board have raised stocks which are not guaranteed, they are subscribed by shareholders, who have no remedy if they get no return on their investment. There is no guarantee of any kind in the case of the Electricity Board. In this case there is a guarantee; the consumers have to pay, and the main line shareholders have to pay. In these circumstances I do not think that this House is justified in giving what amounts to a Second Reading vote for a most obscure and contentious Measure.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Let me answer at once. If my hon. Friend looks at the White Paper he will see exactly the terms on which the Metropolitan Railway has its stock guaranteed.

Sir J. NALL: Will my right hon. Friend say in precise terms what is the contingent liability lying on the shareholders of the main line companies, in what proportion is it to be borne by the four main line groups, and does it rank as a liability in advance of the guaranteed stocks of the main line companies?

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I have listened with great care to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and on the faith of his assurance that due time and the fullest opportunity will be given to discuss this Bill in all its details on the Committee stage, while I regret that he has not seen his way to go further in the direction which I suggested to him, I do not propose to ask the House to vote for my Amendment, and I ask the House for leave to withdraw it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Ordered,
That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be further suspended till the next Session of Parliament.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered,
That on any day in that Session a Motion may be made, after notice, by a Minister of the Crown, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, that proceedings on that Bill may be resumed:
If that Motion is decided in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to call upon the Minister in charge to present the Bill in the form in which it stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended, and the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and all Standing Orders applicable shall be deemed to have been complied with and the Bill than be deemed to have been read a Second
time and to have been reported from a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons and shall stand re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Mr. Pybus.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'clock.